It wasnt many years ago that women and people of a certain status could not vote. In fact, for many, the view would have been unnatural.
Later in the century, we had the same views about divorce, with almost zero divorce rates into the 50s and early 60s.
Then the taboo of **** (Ho mo) sexuality and same sex relationships and now marriage, including the blessings of some churches and ministers.
So, why not incest.
Surely, incest is no different than the slurs and prejudice piled upon all personal choice that our sanctimonious society have punished, shamed and dehumanised others with.
We now have gay marriage and equal adoption.
we have transgender.
we have all manner of openly sexualised relationships.
we are tolerant of faith and belief.
Would you support the view that incestuously conceived relationships should have the same rights as any other relationship including marriage and the right and blessing to have children.
-- Edited by ian on Wednesday 3rd of June 2015 12:39:44 PM
-- Edited by ian on Wednesday 3rd of June 2015 12:40:35 PM
Not sure I would and depends on what you mean by incest Unfortunalety it is not often like it is depicted in sit coms between sibling with an equal power balance. Often it is in the form of abuse which I realise maybe a different perspective from which you are coming form Ian .
Not sure I would and depends on what you mean by incest Unfortunalety it is not often like it is depicted in sit coms between sibling with an equal power balance. Often it is in the form of abuse which I realise maybe a different perspective from which you are coming form Ian .
Game of thrones. obviously, the other kind is abuse and not incest.
interesting how this is one of the last bastions of prejudice I am wondering.
It's not prejudice. There is a very good reason why we are naturally predisposed to not want to procreate with our closest relatives.
Yet many do feel naturally attracted to kin S8. However, what would be the naturalist argument that isn't based on prejudice?
If it's ought to do with genetics we might as well apply this to those with downs, huntingtons, cancer, heart disease, low IQs, and on, and on, until no choice is left.
not sure Game of Thrones is a good example as Joeffrey was the product. I think the point I was trying to make is that a lot of abuse is found within families and it would not always be clear as to what may count as consenting. Yes, I agree if we argue against the genetic pitfalls then the eugenic argument can apply to lots of other areas, which would prove unsavoury.
not sure Game of Thrones is a good example as Joeffrey was the product. I think the point I was trying to make is that a lot of abuse is found within families and it would not always be clear as to what may count as consenting. Yes, I agree if we argue against the genetic pitfalls then the eugenic argument can apply to lots of other areas, which would prove unsavoury.
lol. good point re Joeffrey.
Of course, the same safeguards would/should be applied to consent. If consent is taken as age, mental capacity and freely chosen then it would be no different to any other consensual relationship.
Initially, the age of consent for ****sexuals was set higher than heterosexuals, which was clearly built on continued discrimination.
similar thinking no doubt exists regarding incest. The very name itself carries the same shame as ****sexual would have a few decades ago.
It's not prejudice. There is a very good reason why we are naturally predisposed to not want to procreate with our closest relatives.
Yet many do feel naturally attracted to kin S8. However, what would be the naturalist argument that isn't based on prejudice?
If it's ought to do with genetics we might as well apply this to those with downs, huntingtons, cancer, heart disease, low IQs, and on, and on, until no choice is left.
I think there is a big difference between a couple who have been unlucky in having children with genetic problems and purposefully engaging in activity which, by a massively increased probability, will produce children with genetic problems. The fact that incestuous relationships are morally, socially and legally suppressed is not prejudice it is to protect the innocent from being born under such cir***stances.
However, can't the same freedom to decide by applied to couples, that, knowing the risk of passing on genetically risky material do so anyway and in no way are censored by either religious, scientific or societal concerns. If that's true, and it seems to be a fair statement of facts, then it has to be an unfair discrimination.
We do not discriminate against risk or difference in any other way but society allows adults to make informed decisions.
The outlawing of incest has nothing to do with genetics as it's abhorrence is pre democracy and pre science. In fact, it belongs mainly to social and religious influence does it not?
But, kempo, the difficulty with that argument is that it's based on a point of view not backed by facts. Neither is it backed by ethics.
A man or women could happily have intimate relationship if there was no chance of conception. 2 brothers for example. 2 sisters. A sterilised individual.
Couples could also be tested at some point.
Clearly, in this case the derivation is extremely prejudice as it can be seen to he based not on science or creating suffering but on moral grounds only, which kept ****sexuality in the dark ages
-- Edited by ian on Friday 5th of June 2015 08:59:27 PM
