Genetic Sexual Attraction

[Slytovhand]

Greenday, I'd say that the argument is something like this...

some people and society as a whole find incest is morally rephrehensible
This has been placed into law, following the ecclesiastical courts and the laws of Leviticus (just parroting BK here...)
Laws are designed for a society to reflect it's moral mores
Also within the Bible (which contains Leviticus and other books, upon which laws were based) are also stories in which incest is apparently condoned, if not sanctioned, by God

if something has apparently been sanctioned by God in the Holy Book, then it would be hypocritical to find something offensive about that action.

(if someone wants to clarify or alter what I said, please feel free!)

That's all.

To be honest, it falls into a similar vein as homosexuality of any type. The problem comes where although there have been changes in mores based on religion (in this case, particularly Christianity) is that things change. In the case of christianity, it comes down to what JC said, and how it actually relates to the OT. I've been of the opinion that JC said there is really only one law, and that is to treat everyone nicely - all the other stuff that was law before doesn't really apply anymore (eg - Leviticus stuff). But that's just me...

[powerboy]

Incest is truly morally wrong. Attraction isn't a choice. It is a feeling. Shocking, is it? People cannot help who they are attracted too. If someone is attracted to a family member, there is nothing wrong with that. It is only wrong when they act upon it.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Exactly. Like I said before; would it be right if a man was attracted to a ten year old girl and acted on that? Yet there are people here justifying incest, cuz of this so called helpless attraction. They do not have to act on it. They can choose to have psychiatric help.

[powerboy]

Exactly. Like I said before; would it be right if a man was attracted to a ten year old girl and acted on that? Yet there are people here justifying incest, cuz of this so called helpless attraction. They do not have to act on it. They can choose to have psychiatric help.

Exactly my point. Incest is never right. They can have psychiatric help, But there is some who is actually smart enough to realize that sleeping with said family member is wrong and will never think of them like that.

[Slytovhand]

What's the definition of 'wrong'... one that you can prove beyond any doubt (as in, anyone who cares to doubt it, for whatever reason??)

[protege]

Incest is never right. They can have psychiatric help, But there is some who is actually smart enough to realize that sleeping with said family member is wrong and will never think of them like that.

...and the ones who aren't smart enough usually end up on the Jerry Springer or Maury Povich shows

[AFPheonix]

Explain why you feel it is wrong if both people are of age of consent and neither are in a power position over the other, and contraception is used successfully.

[DesignFox]

Well, it's odd how we would define right and wrong. Back in the day, cousins would marry...there was nothing "wrong" about it.

Back in the day, girls were being married off and popping out babies by the age of 13 or 14, often to husbands a decade or more older than themselves. It wasn't "wrong" then.

I think what it comes down to is consent. In today's society, we all agree that children aren't adults until the age of 18 (at least in the US). Therefore, if both parties are of the age of consent, and neither co-erced the other, there shouldn't be anything "wrong" with it.

I think with the stigma attached, it would be wrong for the adults of such a relationship to have children. It puts the children in a terrible position, socially.

Personally, I think it's icky... there's something messed up about wanting to date your immediate family...

[blas87]

Back in the day, so to speak, marriage and having children was between close relatives to keep the blood "pure".

Nowadays it's been proven that children conceived from two parents with too similar of DNA end up mentally retarded and with lots of health problems.

Keeping the blood "pure"? Ok....

[AFPheonix]

As was pointed out earlier, the initial risk of increased recessive defects only increases by about 2% or so, although that risk increases geometrically with more line-breeding, so to speak.
So one breeding pair of closely related people aren't that much more likely to turn out screwed up kids. Actually they have a far less chance of doing so than that one lady who had that weird brittle bone disease that was the result of a dominant allele who has been insisting on cranking out kids despite having already passed on her disability and increasing physical risk to herself and by extension of putting herself in danger, her already present children.

Being squicked out is not a good enough reason to not like the idea.

[Sylvia727]

Being squicked out is not a good enough reason to not like the idea.

Being squicked out is a great reason not to like the idea. Unless you meant something along the lines of "just because you don't like it isn't a good enough reason to pass judgement on other people." And I agree that personal preference is not a strong enough reason to affect other people. But based on all the reading I've done, I have enough evidence to decide for myself that anyone who practices incest has something broken. Yes, the definition of incest changes with culture, society, and science. But the jist of it remains.

If two incestuous people aren't hurting anyone, then it's not my place to speak up. I can pass judgement that they are not psychologically healthy, but so what?

[Slytovhand]

I think what it comes down to is consent. In today's society, we all agree that children aren't adults until the age of 18 (at least in the US). Therefore, if both parties are of the age of consent, and neither co-erced the other, there shouldn't be anything "wrong" with it.

"All agree" being defined as "the law in various parts of that country"... which does not necessarily represent the will of the people....

I can pass judgement that they are not psychologically healthy, but so what?

I presume you are a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist, then?

[AFPheonix]

Being squicked out is a great reason not to like the idea. Unless you meant something along the lines of "just because you don't like it isn't a good enough reason to pass judgement on other people." And I agree that personal preference is not a strong enough reason to affect other people. But based on all the reading I've done, I have enough evidence to decide for myself that anyone who practices incest has something broken. Yes, the definition of incest changes with culture, society, and science. But the jist of it remains.

If two incestuous people aren't hurting anyone, then it's not my place to speak up. I can pass judgement that they are not psychologically healthy, but so what?

Some people have different gross-out levels. Should injections be morally wrong because some people can't handle giving or receiving them? How about barn mucking? I know people get all squicked out about cleaning gelding's sheathes, which is why I save that chore for when there's no non-horse people around.
Why do you think an incestuous couple, providing they are of age of consent and do not hold a power position over each other, would be mentally ill?

[Sylvia727]

First of all, assume we're talking about Western culture. In other cultures, people may be raised with a different view of incest and/or sexuality. In Western culture, people are raised with a strong social taboo against incest. There's also scientific evidence supporting the Westermarck effect, which is the mechanism in the human brain that prevents sexual attraction towards members of one's own household. According to Wikipedia,

Consensual mutually desired adult incest is very rare

Given that, I can make the logical conclusion that people who engage in incest have something broken in their heads. It's not a value judgement, it's my personal application of the known facts to a certain situation. And no, I'm not a psychologist. I don't have to be to make judgements about my surroundings. If I intended to affect anyone else, then yes, I should probably be a trained and licensed therapist. But I don't need a degree in the subject matter to understand some of the basic premises.

[Slytovhand]

Just sticking with the argument presented... people who sit in caves on mountain tops to meditate on the meaning of life to achieve spiritual enlightenment are very rare as well - does that mean you would judge them to be psychologically unhealthy?

It was just that specific combination of words that was used - rather than the thought behind it, 'tis all.... Especially when you combine 'personal application' with a professional diagnosis.

But, on that same topic, you mention the Westermark effect (yes, I read it from a previous posting - or a link from a link from a previous posting...). What I would then find interesting is that someone could be considered broken or unhealthy because what would be considered a 'normal' response in a human doesn't happen to take effect with some people. Just that 'not statistically usual' now consititutes 'unhealthy'.

Also... step-siblings. What if kids are brought up with mum or dad's new partner's kids. The Westermark effect might take effect - or not. Is this an issue if those kids get together after living in each other's pockets for 15 years? I presume the answer from us all will be 'No - of course not, they're not actually related biologically". Which then leads to my question - why does biology have relevance in moral/ethical questions? And, from these 2 examples, does that mean that biology will always have moral or ethical significance??