Incest: an age-old taboo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's freakin wrong, period.

Why is it wrong, other than "society tells us so"?

Because an individual's moral compass tells them so I guess...

Edited March 14, 2007 by erekose

[William33 110]

It's freakin wrong, period.

Why is it wrong, other than "society tells us so"?

Because an individual's moral compass tells them so I guess...

That is reality mate, for the majority. Thanks for pointing that out.

I sometimes wonder what is going on with the VJ crowd, Are there that many deviants?

[Peikko 1,575]

Deviants as in people who don't share your opinion? I guess that would be a yes.

[mawilson 2,133]

Because an individual's moral compass tells them so I guess...

But... people are not born with moral compasses, there are no "absolute" concepts of "right" and "wrong".

If we grew up in a society which condoned murder, we wouldn't think it was "wrong" to kill people.

[William33 110]

Deviants as in people who don't share your opinion? I guess that would be a yes.

Dance around the primary issue all you wish. Semantics are simply stall tactics.

Your responses infer that you fullly support incest. We await your supporting opinions on that!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's freakin wrong, period.

Why is it wrong, other than "society tells us so"?

Because an individual's moral compass tells them so I guess...

That is reality mate, for the majority. Thanks for pointing that out.

I sometimes wonder what is going on with the VJ crowd, Are there that many deviants?

I think that explains why people are more accepting of homosexuality than incest. Homosexuality has been out there for a long time and has assimilated into our culture. Its still considered deviant, but its not the "behind closed doors / to be ashamed of" activity that it once was. There has been no such discussion about incest - probably because it doesn't happen all that much. The suggestion that "incest is fundamentally wrong" is based on religious morality. I guess in issues where there is no basis for a subjective value judgement, the natural reaction is to turn to ideology.

Most of us do the same thing automatically with foreign foods - hence it becomes disgusting for us to consider eating, for example, an animal that isn't traditionally considered a "food animal" - dogs, cats, mouse, horse etc.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because an individual's moral compass tells them so I guess...

But... people are not born with moral compasses, there are no "absolute" concepts of "right" and "wrong".

If we grew up in a society which condoned murder, we wouldn't think it was "wrong" to kill people.

True - but I think the issue here is that most moral judgements about complex social issues are subjective and aren't based on absolute conceptions of right and wrong..

[William33 110]

Apparently a hopeless topic here. While being here among those that accept anything.

It's all good and further affirmation of my decision to remain anonymous.

Message to self: Good call!!

[Peikko 1,575]

Make as many assumptions as you wish about my opinions. Of course, you could try reading what I have already stated.

Do you really think that a society that condoned murder would be impervious to any right/wrong issues on this matter? Surely part of what makes it 'wrong' is that it takes away something that 'belongs' to someone else. How could this concept be made palatable to all?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Apparently a hopeless topic here. While being here among those that accept anything.

It's all good and further affirmation of my decision to remain anonymous.

Message to self: Good call!!

I think you have to question 'why it is wrong'. My immediate (automatic) reaction is that it's wrong too - even before I start to think about the problems involved with it. Still I'm not about to condone and celebrate it.

I generally consider myself open-minded, but I concede that it will take a lot to convince me that it isn't wrong. That said, I'm aware that I think that way because of ideology.

[fozzie 41]

I will start with "I believe that Incest is wrong" I don't justify it (plenty of good points already made by others), it's just my opinion.

Second - Before we had cars and planes ets people could not travel very far and thus were restricted in the number of different genepools that they were exposed to. Therefore there was a lot of intermarrying between families and even within the same family. So incest has been around a very long time indeed and was probably more prevalent the further back you go.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I will start with "I believe that Incest is wrong" I don't justify it (plenty of good points already made by others), it's just my opinion.

Second - Before we had cars and planes ets people could not travel very far and thus were restricted in the number of different genepools that they were exposed to. Therefore there was a lot of intermarrying between families and even within the same family. So incest has been around a very long time indeed and was probably more prevalent the further back you go.

Incest was quite acceptable in the ancient world - uncles marrying their nieces, first cousins marrying etc - though even in pre-Christian Rome it was taboo between siblings. The ancient Egyptians used to do it however...

I guess we consider that society has 'advanced' since then - but its equally conceivable that in thousand years it could make a resurgence. Societies aren't really static like that.

Edited March 14, 2007 by erekose

[William33 110]

I will start with "I believe that Incest is wrong" I don't justify it (plenty of good points already made by others), it's just my opinion.

Second - Before we had cars and planes ets people could not travel very far and thus were restricted in the number of different genepools that they were exposed to. Therefore there was a lot of intermarrying between families and even within the same family. So incest has been around a very long time indeed and was probably more prevalent the further back you go.

Incest was quite acceptable in the ancient world - uncles marrying their nieces, first cousins marrying etc - though even in pre-Christian Rome it was taboo between siblings. The ancient Egyptians used to do it however...

I guess we consider that society has 'advanced' since then - but its equally conceivable that in thousand years it could make a resurgence. Societies aren't really static like that.

Alrighty then, who will support it, rather than defend it?

Anyone prepared to defend Incest? Anyone?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Alrighty then, who will support it, rather than defend it?

Anyone prepared to defend Incest? Anyone?

It's not a matter of defending it. But what's the difference between homosexuality and incest? It wouldn't affect you or me if either was going on between consenting adults. Political correctness says to be nice to gay but not to incestuous couples. Will that change in 50 years? 50 years ago both were taboo.

Didn't many royal families maintain their gene pool rather shallow?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I didn't mention religion in my post, PH. You see it there whether it's there or not. For you, religion is a boogeyman lurking behind every choice you disagree with.

No, hedonism cannot be reasonable. It is based upon self-serving desire, thus, from it, you get brothers and sisters wanting to marry and people who are so open-minded about the possibility that their brains fall out.

Morality, as defined by society, should be an element, and that is lost when the law is changed to reflect hedonism rather than reason.

Hedonism can't be reasonable? Reason = religious morality?

Society can be ethical without being bound by religious morality It is perfectly possible to value life, the individual and the individual's interaction within society without any reference to god. To say that any view that isn't grounded in religious morality is unreasonable is simplistic to say the very least.

Morality, as defined by society, should be an element, and that is lost when the law is changed to reflect hedonism rather than reason.

Hedonism can't be reasonable? Reason = religious morality?

Society can be ethical without being bound by religious morality It is perfectly possible to value life, the individual and the individual's interaction within society without any reference to god. To say that any view that isn't grounded in religious morality is unreasonable is simplistic to say the very least.

Well said. Religion plays a major part for some, for others, it is about what is right and appropriate.

Religion is not the be all-end all of morality. Speaking as a confirmed (30 years), yet diposed Catholic (married outside the church), my morals and ethics were developed elsewhere.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Green-eyed girl