• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Incest.

Ori

Angel slayer
beckysoup61 said:
Specifically for Christians, this against the Bible. It's just something that was not meant to be. That's why were given husbands/wives/etc.

That's just my view on it.
Against the Bible ay?

"And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."
Genesis 20:11-12
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Orichalcum said:
Against the Bible ay?


"And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."

Genesis 20:11-12
AH HA! (already knew that one...)
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Fluffy said:
If it were the kind of evidence I would feel happy about accepting then sure. There are many things in science that I feel I don't know enough about to simply accept but if there was sufficient (for me) evidence to show that incest was harmful to one or both parties, and I already think there are some circumstances where this is true, then I would not find tolerating such circumstances necessary. I would also say the same for hetero and homosexual sex (as I already do in the case of rape for example).
What about the evidence I posted?
 

Fluffy

A fool
What about the evidence I posted?
Some of it I accept, some of it I find highly dodgy. Regardless, none of it does anything to destroy the notion of informed (no children), consenting (no rape), safe (condoms) sex being a totally amoral thing and none of it manages to show that it is not possible to have an incestuous relationships that conforms to these 3 requirements.

Therefore, I find it more useful to say that I am against a sex when any of these 3 things are not sorted out as opposed to saying that I am against sex (in this case incestuous) except for when these 3 things are accounted for. It means that I can equate incestuous sex with being as normal and amoral as any other type of acceptable sex and it also means that the issue of "When is sex morally wrong?" does not become further complicated beyond the 3 requirements already outlined.

If all incestuous sex is totally mutually exclusive with at least one of the given requirements then I would say that all incestuous sex is immoral and not before :).
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Fluffy said:
Some of it I accept, some of it I find highly dodgy. Regardless, none of it does anything to destroy the notion of informed (no children), consenting (no rape), safe (condoms) sex being a totally amoral thing and none of it manages to show that it is not possible to have an incestuous relationships that conforms to these 3 requirements.

Therefore, I find it more useful to say that I am against a sex when any of these 3 things are not sorted out as opposed to saying that I am against sex (in this case incestuous) except for when these 3 things are accounted for. It means that I can equate incestuous sex with being as normal and amoral as any other type of acceptable sex and it also means that the issue of "When is sex morally wrong?" does not become further complicated beyond the 3 requirements already outlined.

If all incestuous sex is totally mutually exclusive with at least one of the given requirements then I would say that all incestuous sex is immoral and not before :).
"Dodgy"? I can try for some more; first though, why do you consider it dodgy ?
 

Fluffy

A fool
"Dodgy"? I can try for some more; first though, why do you consider it dodgy ?
I'll go through it.

First paragraph: The author has brought gender into it... why? First thing that hits me and I will look to the rest of the article to have it answered.
Second paragraph: Definition of incest is not factually correct. Bias shown against incest via the use of "inappropriate touching".
Third paragraph: Fair enough I will go with that assumption. I certainly agree that incest is very widespread however from my study, albeit rather scattered, of incestuous material on the internet, I would say that the indication is that both are equally common.
Fourth paragraph: Oh dear. This is where he lets the hat out of the bag. Previously, when he was talking about Father-son intercourse etc. He actually meant when the son was still a child.

So to recap so far. This author defines incest as a relationship that must be kept secret from other family members and takes place when one or both members are in their childhood. I have big problems with this.

Skip to paragraph 10: Ahhh so this is why gender is an issue. Because girls are essentially not as powerful as boys and so would feel pressured into the sex. An unfair assumption and one that does not affect the authors definition of sibling incest which he said included homosexual incest as well.
paragraph 11: I don't know where he got that assumption from. For starters, why the gender bias and then why is it relevant?
paragraph 12: Well sure he is totally right here. I'm pretty sure if I had a homosexual relationship in say Iran, I would suffer from the same problems. Doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong, however. It doesn't even mean that I shouldn't be able to agree with my partner to have such a relationship given such troubles.

Then the author goes on to talk about rape. His argument is basically saying that rape, being rape, is wrong and since we know that incest, under my special definition, must be rape, incest must be wrong also.

Actually that was a lot more dodgy than when I first read it through lol :).
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Fluffy said:
I'll go through it.

First paragraph: The author has brought gender into it... why? First thing that hits me and I will look to the rest of the article to have it answered.
Second paragraph: Definition of incest is not factually correct. Bias shown against incest via the use of "inappropriate touching".
Third paragraph: Fair enough I will go with that assumption. I certainly agree that incest is very widespread however from my study, albeit rather scattered, of incestuous material on the internet, I would say that the indication is that both are equally common.
Fourth paragraph: Oh dear. This is where he lets the hat out of the bag. Previously, when he was talking about Father-son intercourse etc. He actually meant when the son was still a child.

So to recap so far. This author defines incest as a relationship that must be kept secret from other family members and takes place when one or both members are in their childhood. I have big problems with this.

Skip to paragraph 10: Ahhh so this is why gender is an issue. Because girls are essentially not as powerful as boys and so would feel pressured into the sex. An unfair assumption and one that does not affect the authors definition of sibling incest which he said included homosexual incest as well.
paragraph 11: I don't know where he got that assumption from. For starters, why the gender bias and then why is it relevant?
paragraph 12: Well sure he is totally right here. I'm pretty sure if I had a homosexual relationship in say Iran, I would suffer from the same problems. Doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong, however. It doesn't even mean that I shouldn't be able to agree with my partner to have such a relationship given such troubles.

Then the author goes on to talk about rape. His argument is basically saying that rape, being rape, is wrong and since we know that incest, under my special definition, must be rape, incest must be wrong also.

Actually that was a lot more dodgy than when I first read it through lol :).
You disagree that rape is wrong?
 

Fluffy

A fool
I disagree that incest constitutes rape. I feel that if I rape my daughter, the fact that it is incest has no bearing on the fact that it is rape and therefore no bearing on the fact that it is wrong.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Fluffy said:
I disagree that incest constitutes rape. I feel that if I rape my daughter, the fact that it is incest has no bearing on the fact that it is rape and therefore no bearing on the fact that it is wrong.
You disagree that incest constitutes rape; I wonder why ? I can understand that in the case of Consensual adult incest, but between father and daughter ? Mother and son ?

Consenseual sex is one where full consent (with the full knowledge of what that entails) is obtained before the sexual act.

You still consider incest not rape in the case of parent vs child ?
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Pardus said:
michel, do you believe that all parents die before their children reach 18?
Obviously not; what relevence has that to the discussion in point ?
 

Pah

Uber all member
Why is it that sex with a stepmother (or stepfather with stepdaughters for that matter) is wrong? Genetically it doesn't carry the genetic possible problems.
 

Solon

Active Member
Pardus said:
I'm going to start doing a whole load of tabooish questions because everything needs to be asked, here's one

If noone gets pregnant and both are fully able to concent (age, etc), what is wrong with incest?
Genetic abnormalities if pregnancy occurs. For an interesting slant on how this works, study the Ptolemaic dynasty of Greeks who ruled Egypt following Alexander's death.

S
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Pah said:
Why is it that sex with a stepmother (or stepfather with stepdaughters for that matter) is wrong? Genetically it doesn't carry the genetic possible problems.
It is 'wrong' because it is still within the family boundaries; there is actually no practical reason for it being wrong, but culture has a fixed and unyielding view on incest.

What is strange though, and surely must sometimes happen, is incest between half brothers and sisters who don't even know they are related.....it must happen.
 

ch'ang

artist in training
This is just another one of those topics that is wrong because culture says so, other than that fact that the kids would turn out a little "over done"
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
Pardus said:
If noone gets pregnant and both are fully able to concent (age, etc), what is wrong with incest?
Nothing. I have no problems with incest provided it functions like any other healthy relationship (no power issues, etc.)
 

Fluffy

A fool
Nothing. I have no problems with incest provided it functions like any other healthy relationship (no power issues, etc.)
As always it is a pleasure to see a view that rests upon solid, logical foundations. Frubals to you!
 
Top