Incest (discussion moved from thread on the the Christian Topic)

[Leonard James]

Moderator:

Just to say that this posts of Len's is the OP in this thread, which contains posts about the civil as opposed to Christian aspects of incest from the thread in the Christian Topic.


There is nothing wrong with incest providing suitable steps are taken to ensure that :-

1) contraception is used

or

2) the resulting embryo, if damaged by the close relationship of the parents, is aborted.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

There is nothing wrong with incest providing suitable steps are taken to ensure that :-

1) contraception is used

or

2) the resulting embryo, if damaged by the close relationship of the parents, is aborted.

I think you will find that the most common objection to incest is that one party gets coerced into it by the other.

[Nearly Sane]

Given that most people find the concept unacceptable,  and that homophobes often use such examples to point out how homosexuality is the slippery slope to such things, it may not be your greatest point, Len.

 

It's not that I don't understand the point you are making, I do.

It's just it isn't one that might reflect well on increasing people's tolerance towards homosexuality.

 

Don't get your point here, it seems to be that Leonard should not express what he thinks because since he is gay some idiots with the reasoning power of pocket lint might make a false argument out of it?

[Nearly Sane]

I think you will find that the most common objection to incest is that one party gets coerced into it by the other.

I'd agree. There was certainly once a taboo based on the question of the problem of offspring but I think it remains a difficult situation to avoid the possibility of coercion. As law is a blunt tool, this de iure means that people might be criminalised with no real intent but think on balance I remain in favour of law against it, with any action to be reasonably discretionary.

[Nearly Sane]

Some people are tolerant of two consenting adults of the same sex etc,  but considerably less tolerant of incest.

My point is Leonard by making the point he is, is unintentionally supporting that false argument. ( that homosexuality is a slippery slope to other things)


At least in the eyes of people who find incest unacceptable.

But it's up to him, just sayin.

🌹

You call the people out who make the false argument then, you don't tell people not to state a position because someone might misuse it. It's also to my mind, wanting gay people to restrict their l action differently from straights because there are idiots, which is giving into homophobia.

[Leonard James]

Given that most people find the concept unacceptable,  and that homophobes often use such examples to point out how homosexuality is the slippery slope to such things, it may not be your greatest point, Len.

 

It's not that I don't understand the point you are making, I do.

It's just it isn't one that might reflect well on increasing people's tolerance towards homosexuality.

 

As far as I am concerned there is no connection between incest and homosexuality. If people see one, that is their mistake.

[Nearly Sane]

What on earth have incest and homosexuality in common?

There isn't one, never said there was.  The post you replied to was me talking about incest. Why did you ask the question?

[Leonard James]

I think you will find that the most common objection to incest is that one party gets coerced into it by the other.

Obviously I am referring to consenting adults, not coersion.

[Nearly Sane]

Obviously I am referring to consenting adults, not coersion.

But the question in a family is where the structure makes it difficult to judge if consent can  be freely given, such as between a father and a daughter, because of the inherent power structure of the relationship.

[Leonard James]

But the question in a family is where the structure makes it difficult to judge if consent can  be freely given, such as between a father and a daughter, because of the inherent power structure of the relationship.

Yes, I see that, but that is no reason to outlaw incest. In all cases the individual circumstances have to be taken into consideration.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I see that, but that is no reason to outlaw incest. In all cases the individual circumstances have to be taken into consideration.

I think it is a reason, for the simple fact, that taken things into consideration has to happen post facto, and then the damage, if there is any, will have happened. I agree that you take individual circumstances into account but would rather in this case that there is a presumption against. Familial relationships seem to me too complex to make a supposition for sensible.

[floo]

There isn't one, never said there was.  The post you replied to was me talking about incest. Why did you ask the question?

I wasn't replying to you and had misread Rose's post. I shall delete my reply.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Obviously I am referring to consenting adults, not coersion.

Do you think that incestous couples should be allowed to marry?

[Leonard James]

I think it is a reason, for the simple fact, that taken things into consideration has to happen post facto, and then the damage, if there is any, will have happened. I agree that you take individual circumstances into account but would rather in this case that there is a presumption against. Familial relationships seem to me too complex to make a supposition for sensible.

Judging any law-breaking has to be after the damage is done.

[Leonard James]

Do you think that incestous couples should be allowed to marry?

If they are consenting adults, yes.

[Nearly Sane]

Judging any law-breaking has to be after the damage is done.

Well yes, but the question is really about your estimate of the risk of damage. And here I think there has to be a supposition against because I don't think that you can avoid that it puts at risk people because of how family relationships work. It will be hard for those who don't actually consent to speak out.

[Nearly Sane]

I wasn't replying to you and had misread Rose's post. I shall delete my reply.

Thanks. You had quoted me though and not Rose.

[floo]

Well yes, but the question is really about your estimate of the risk of damage. And here I think there has to be a supposition against because I don't think that you can avoid that it puts at risk people because of how family relationships work. It will be hard for those who don't actually consent to speak out.

Sibling incest, providing no children were the result of such a union, is possibly less damaging than parent/adult child incest, which is very undesirable, imo. I think incest is best avoided.

[Leonard James]

Well yes, but the question is really about your estimate of the risk of damage. And here I think there has to be a supposition against because I don't think that you can avoid that it puts at risk people because of how family relationships work. It will be hard for those who don't actually consent to speak out.

Unfortunately that blankets all cases, denying loving couples where coersion doesn't come into it.

[Nearly Sane]

Unfortunately that blankets all cases, denying loving couples where coersion doesn't come into it.

  yep, it does. As I said it's about a balance of risk, and given the complexity of familial relations, the damage it could cause and the real problem that people would find it difficulty to talk about coercion, or even necessarily realise it was coercion due to the circumstances, then it seems to me you keep the ban.

[Leonard James]

  yep, it does. As I said it's about a balance of risk, and given the complexity of familial relations, the damage it could cause and the real problem that people would find it difficulty to talk about coercion, or even necessarily realise it was coercion due to the circumstances, then it seems to me you keep the ban.

Well I will have to disagree with you. 

I don't think that keeping it illegal will prevent it happening, in most cases.

[wigginhall]

I think it would be perilous to permit incestuous marriage.  Imagine a 40 year old man marrying his young daughter, the potential for psychological manipulation is huge.   Sexual abuse in the family would become quasi-legitimate. 

[Leonard James]

I think it would be perilous to permit incestuous marriage.  Imagine a 40 year old man marrying his young daughter, the potential for psychological manipulation is huge.   Sexual abuse in the family would become quasi-legitimate.

Procedures could be set up to ensure the marriage was freely accepted by the daughter.

[Nearly Sane]

Well I will have to disagree with you. 

I don't think that keeping it illegal will prevent it happening, in most cases.

But it won't validate it and support effective abuse by someone in a position of power, making it harder to speak out if you are abused

[Leonard James]

But it won't validate it and support effective abuse by someone in a position of power, making it harder to speak out if you are abused

It boils down to the greater good, I suppose. The only way to find out is to try it for a period.