So, how long before incest becomes morally acceptable?

Originally posted by FeceMan
What the Bible says or does not say has any applicability to this thread.

Although, Backfire may be correct.

It does...a lot of what western cultures morals are based on come from christianity...christianity comes from the bible and the Nicea meeting/s.

If you ask a question about morals to a bunch of westerners...expect religion to play are large part in their answers....

Edit-I see that others have responded since I started responding...I got a call at work so it took a while to make this post. 😄

That was just my thoughts on the subject. I'm christian so yes I believe in God. Incest has been going on throughout history and I think that in some cases if humans hadn't giving in to incest at least once along the line, some people may have never been born. Who knows...sure today incest may never be morally excepted because of the very thought that family members having relations with one another is disgusting. But as I said before, a long time ago there was hardly a choice to the matter...

biological revulsion towards incest is a dubious theory though. if you look at the animal kingdom, well see that many, {id say majority even} animals do commit incest among siblings. i think havng sex with PARENTS is very very rare. but with siblings, its pretty normal. which questions the assumptions of the theory on siblings any way of whether the revulsion is nature based or nurture based.{think mice for instance}

also, i wudnt consider marrying cousins and sorts incest. it happens in the greater part of the world specially among muslims etc. its not ideal but not really worth considering as incest.

on the other hand, even taking out teaching, ive never had such desires towards my siblings in any explicit instance i can remember.{many children are "curious" at young ages of the differences in between them and a different sex family member but that shud be seperated from actual sexual attraction} its just not present in my expirience. so probably the genetic element comes in. specially since you hardly ever hear about cases where supression of sexual urges for parents or siblings is psychologically revealed or posessed problems, veyr unlike supressing your sexual urges for non family opposite/same sex peers.

ofcourse of the rare cases where it does happen{between siblings} im not judgmental and its their life. if they are happy then its great. although i wudnt feal the same about parent/child one though as theres almost ALWAYS pedophelia involved and taking advantage of a younger person who is succeptible to persuasion and allowance.

Because they will get past it and make retards

Originally posted by FeceMan
Not trolling here, but rather I'm honestly interested.

There is not one logical reason why incest is morally wrong. Take, for example, a brother and sister who are in an incestuous relationship. They're both older than the age of consent, and they use methods of contraception--let's say vasectomy, hysterectomy, condoms, and the pill. There is virtually no chance of them ever creating a child, so there will never be the pitter-patter of little Quasimodos lumbering about the house one day.

So, how long until it's acceptable and the bans on intra-family marriage are lifted?

There is nothing morally wrong with brother and sister incest , as long as both are of consenting age. Ages ago, it was considered "normal" among royalty and commoner alike.

It's not morally wrong, it's just "gross".

I agree somewhat. I don't encourage it but it was once normal so I'm kinda neutral on the question whether or not it should be continued. Incest must not affect people that much cause going on through life and with incest being practiced, most people haven't come out deformed or anything. But yeah today it's a gross idea so therefore most people reject it.

For something like that to be moral that would be sick.It is a very sick thing to happen to people or for people to do to others.How can anyone even think of it ever becoming moral?jm

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
There is nothing morally wrong with brother and sister incest , as long as both are of consenting age. Ages ago, it was considered "normal" among royalty and commoner alike.

It's not morally wrong, it's just "gross".

Anyhow, I believe that incest is one of those things that, like rape, is so imbedded into our conscience that we--well, most of us--know that it is wrong on a fundamental level, kind of like rape.

Now, before some asshat comes along and starts squalling about how I'm comparing incest between two consenting person and rape, just shut up and listen.

Why is rape wrong? Because it hurts someone? So what? Why is hurting someone else wrong?

Therein lies the problem with ethics. We see things that we presuppose are wrong and try to concoct reasons for them being that way--when, all along, we could just say, "This is wrong and there's no arguing it."

Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm so smart.

Anyhow, I believe that incest is one of those things that, like rape, is so imbedded into our conscience that we--well, most of us--know that it is wrong on a fundamental level, kind of like rape.

Now, before some asshat comes along and starts squalling about how I'm comparing incest between two consenting person and rape, just shut up and listen.

Why is rape wrong? Because it hurts someone? So what? Why is hurting someone else wrong?

Therein lies the problem with ethics. We see things that we presuppose are wrong and try to concoct reasons for them being that way--when, all along, we could just say, "This is wrong and there's no arguing it."

People who commit incest don't feel its wrong, the same way homosexuals most of the time don't feel that what they are doing is wrong.

Why do you think incest is "fundamentally" wrong ? Let's just say in case of brother and sister, both same age, w mutual consent. How is thier relationship wrong?

"Wrong" and "Gross" are not the same thing.

To me, Morality is all about how people treat other people. If you benefit someone, that is right. If you harm someone, that is wrong. That basically sums it up.

How is anyone being hurt in a mutual consenting relationship ?

You're missing the point.

Why is hurting someone wrong? You can't give an adequate reason--which is the problem with ethics. We presuppose certain things are wrong by our conscience and then try to explain them logically.

Which raises the question of to whom things need to be morally acceptable before people will generally state they are morally acceptable.

Originally posted by FeceMan
You're missing the point.

Why is hurting someone wrong? You can't give an adequate reason--which is the problem with ethics. We presuppose certain things are wrong by our conscience and then try to explain them logically.

Sounds like your promoting moral relativism now.... 😬

Right and Wrong are all about Pain and Pleasure. That's how it all starts. What we like and don't like. Then we project that onto other people.

Morality is about how you treat other people. Hurting someone is malevolent, while helping someone is benevolent.

I don't know how much easier I can make it for you...

Well, if I were to approach the subject of morality from a purely secular humanist view, I would indeed advocate moral relativism--and I enjoy playing the devil's advocate now and then.

However, I approach morality from a divine command theory/Kantianistic point-of-view, so that's moot.

I see your point, feceman.

Despite the fact that I do not find anyone in my family sexually attractive...I do see your point still. (I am also talking about cousins.)

Well, if no one reproduces, then there really is nothing morally wrong with it. IMHO. I think that IF relatives do "make sex", they should make sure that there is no way that reproduction can happen...such has vasectomy, etc.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Not trolling here, but rather I'm honestly interested.

There is not one logical reason why incest is morally wrong. Take, for example, a brother and sister who are in an incestuous relationship. They're both older than the age of consent, and they use methods of contraception--let's say vasectomy, hysterectomy, condoms, and the pill. There is virtually no chance of them ever creating a child, so there will never be the pitter-patter of little Quasimodos lumbering about the house one day.

So, how long until it's acceptable and the bans on intra-family marriage are lifted?

I'd say never. Well, that's just my personal opinion. I find the idea of having sex with a sibling just gross.

whoever thought of this shit is purely white trash. and i say that as a white guy. incest is wrong on so many levels.

Originally posted by PiruBlood
whoever thought of this shit is purely white trash. and i say that as a white guy. incest is wrong on so many levels.

You would say that, but my mom and sisters are hot!!

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
You would say that, but my mom and sisters are hot!!

i got some female family members who are good looking but that dont mean i would **** them.

Originally posted by PiruBlood
i got some female family members who are good looking but that dont mean i would **** them.

You say that but no! Post some pics and i'll rate them on the old bangability scale.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Therein lies the problem with ethics. We see things that we presuppose are wrong and try to concoct reasons for them being that way--when, all along, we could just say, "This is wrong and there's no arguing it."

Therein does lie the problem. It's just like "Freedom of Religion". It's a good theory in principle, but totally fails to take into consideration the fact that both religion and ethics have a built in superiority complex. There is no room for subjective opinion in either. You have to buy into it or you don't. There's very little room to move on either issue. It would be a lot easier if both religion and ethics weren't connected and absolute in the minds of those who "practice" them. This is totally apparent with the statement "This is wrong, and there's no arguing it", which is really just a more formal way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong, as always, and there's just no middle ground."

This is the attitude of a majority of people who haven't learned how not to take themselves or their "religion" too seriously. Dropping words like concoct to describe the position of someone else isn't exactly the most open-minded and tolerent way of describing how easily you dismiss anothers perspective on any number of topics, including religion and "ethics".

But, I suppose that's your point. They need not be considered when passing judgment on others is the basis of your religious and ethical world view. I'm not saying there aren't some absolutes, but not considering the circumstances first would be making a rush to judgment.