jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (30 posts)

Kissing cousins and same sex siblings.

  1. Innuentendre profile image86
    Innuentendreposted 4 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6874057_f248.jpg
    If incest laws were created to prevent inbreeding and same sex couples are at no risk of doing so, should same sex marriage laws supersede incest laws?

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Your statement is absurd.

      Incest laws are incest laws.

      Same sex marriage laws are just that same sex marriage laws.

      Neither one is going to supersede any other laws.

      Incest laws were created to prevent inbred children from existing due to medical issues which can develop. There are other Laws on top of the incest Laws which also determine sexual actions between relatives, friends, strangers, associates, acquaintances and even one-night stands.

      Are those laws to supersede any other Law? No.

      1. Innuentendre profile image86
        Innuentendreposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Absurd indeed. Absurdity is relative to reality Cagsil. Half a century ago, same-sex marriages would've been considered absurd.

        My question pertains to the fact that same-sex couples cannot naturally reproduce and are thus exempt from the possible consequences of inbreeding. Should we deny an expression of love between two consenting adults based on our personal morality with out considering their feelings?

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And stupidity in motion I thought was only relative to when I speak about politicians. Thank you for your enlightening insight.
          But, that still would NOT allow them to break Incest Laws.
          I'm not denying anyone the expression of love between two consenting adult, regardless of what other people or myself thinks.

          I'm actually a Rights Advocate. So, with me you're barking up the wrong tree. The cat ran up another.

          1. Innuentendre profile image86
            Innuentendreposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You're most welcome Cagsil.. I don't assume to be acquainted with you nor to be an expert on morality. Please forgive my "stupidity in motion". The question that I posed is should not "would" same sex marriage laws supersede incest marriage laws?

            I'm sure that same sex marriages have caused uproars in a community or two as well as a plethora of family drama Nouveau Skeptic. Tis the nature  of taboo love.

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Forgiveness of others is overrated and meaningless. Forgive yourself for putting yourself into the position you put yourself into. Recognize what is to be learned from it and move on.

              Morality, one doesn't need to be an expert, to understand it. How in touch one is with self is what matters because then morality wouldn't matter in your mind. You wouldn't even give it a second thought, if you truly understood yourself. Why not? Because, conscience knows all and ego only thinks it knows all.
              And, my answer would still remain No. No Law supersedes any other Law. Nor does any Law negate any other Law.
              Taboo? There's NOTHING taboo about life. The "taboo" BS comes directly from those who hold a religious view according to G/god's will and law.

              Taboo is for the simple-minded, closed-minded and narrow-minded. Which btw- has no place within humanity any longer because it's becoming a detriment to the survival of the human species.

              1. Innuentendre profile image86
                Innuentendreposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I respect your opinion without insult. Patience is a virtue; especially for a rights activist Casgil. I agree, self forgiveness is important. I'm also aware that morality dictates trends.

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Morality has only two paths to take. No trends. It either goes forward or backwards. It doesn't swing upward and downward. It cannot.

                  Morality evolves as the mind, the intellect grows and awareness evolves on a social scale.

                  Morality evolves within oneself alarming fast providing one is being true to oneself. If one is true to themselves, then they will have learned to be honest with themselves about being honest with themselves. They will have an increased awareness about themselves, their life and their role in the world around them. They will have learned to teach themselves how to be honest and recognize it's true honesty. They will have learned that their actions all have a consequence and a reaction from those surrounding them at the time of the action.

                  They will learn to recognize their own ego driven actions and which ones are conscience driven actions. If you think you're alone in your head, you're not.

                  Just to make it simple to understand and universally known below is a simple understanding that every person should have knowledge of and live by.

                  All actions are either moral, immoral or amoral and it's all based on honesty, dishonesty, and emotions.

                  Honesty = Good = Moral = Conscience action.

                  Dishonesty = Bad = Immoral = Egotistical action.(not all ego driven actions are harmful or bad, but more are carelessly thought out actions which means the consequence and reaction are completely unknown to the individual)

                  Emotion = Instinctive/Reactionary = Amoral = Crying, laughing sort of actions. (emotions are cause and effect related- each emotion is tied to a cause which brings on the effect(emotion))

        2. Nouveau Skeptic profile image73
          Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And I explained that avoiding inbreeding is not the only reason for the taboo and probably not even the main one.  The main problem with incest is having your community explode in a superating mess of abuse, drama, trips to the Springer show, infidelity and sexual-jealousy fueled murder.

    2. Eranofu profile image79
      Eranofuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think there should be no such laws that would restrict true love of any kind and that is what marriage is meant for in its essence. At least I truly believe in that from all my heart.

      To be less serious... Hmmm.. Incest? Fun for all the family.

      1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image73
        Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So, what about the "true love" of a man for a 5 year old boy?

        We quickly go from declarations supporting all love to deciding some people's subjective feelings of love are not valid.

        1. Greekgeek profile image96
          Greekgeekposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The power dynamics of an adult having a sexual relationship with a child are terribly unbalanced. There's no way the adult can't have more psychological authority, control, or power over the child. An unbalanced controller/controlled sexual relationship is usually a bad idea, but add to it the fact that a child is still forming his/her sexual identity, and it's clear why it's unfair to the child even if it's a horny adolescent who's feeling flattered and excited by the attention.

          Consenting adults is the dividing line. I see a little wiggle room for cultural definitions of incest (kissing cousins), but absolutely none on that point.

          1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image73
            Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So, mother-son as long as they are adult?

            1. Greekgeek profile image96
              Greekgeekposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, see my previous post on the non-biological reasons for discouraging incest.

              And we can add unbalanced power dynamics to parent-children relationships as well. They linger into adulthood.

              But incest varies more by culture, since some of the reasons against it have to do with the psychology of who counts as family (which really does vary) and inheritance laws.

              Whereas the imbalance of adult-child power dynamics is universal.

        2. Eranofu profile image79
          Eranofuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I myself love children and if someone happens to truly love and understand a particular one I can't imagine they would force sexual relationship. I have had some quite romantic platonic relationships with grownups as a kid and it only helped me grow as a human. All love is beautiful as long as it is not forced. The thing with children and animals for that matter is that they can't really agree on their free will to sexual relationship (here i am talking of small children not teenagers and so) because of the way how they are but when it comes to romantic, platonic and affectionate love, everyone can enjoy it.

  2. writeyourwrongs profile image78
    writeyourwrongsposted 4 years ago

    If the purpose of the incest laws were created solely for the prevention of interbreeding then it would make sense for the same-sex marriage law to overrule the incest law. However, I think incest laws are also in place to ensure the health and well-being of the individuals involved and all those connected to them, as incest potentially carries with it other health problems both physical and emotional.

    1. Lisa HW profile image82
      Lisa HWposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Incest laws apply to adoptive family members, so you're right:  In-breeding isn't the only thing involved.  Besides, laws aren't built around what other laws aren't being broken by something. (I'm not defending any same-sex marriage laws that are out there on either side - just saying the "laws-by-what-something-isn't-doing" approach to law-making approach is like saying, "Laws against robbing banks are designed to keep people from taking other people's money; so since driving drunk at 100 mph isn't taking someone else's money, shouldn't the drunk-driving laws be superceded by the no-robbing-banks laws?"

    2. Innuentendre profile image86
      Innuentendreposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Although many legal and consensual adult relationships and behaviors are high risk both emotionally and physically, perhaps I've overlooked the true intent of  incest marriage laws, which obviously prevent parents from passing homogeneous genetics to their offspring.

      Taboo marriages becoming socially acceptable may be a catalyst to examining the 'why's' behind preexisting laws preventing them.
      Certainly same sex marriage laws and interbreeding marriage laws correlate more than bank robbing and drunk driving laws Lisa HW, but  I see your logic.

      1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image73
        Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The intent is to avoid things that are bad for the tribe.  The underlying genetic element is implicit at best.  And psychological elements (e.g. children and siblings being safe from abuse) are at least as important.  That is why the taboo almost always applies to non-genetic groups like adopted and step family, spouses and widows of siblings etc.  It has more to do with removing sex from family relationship other then spouse, thus defusing sexual rivalry and exploitation from household relationships.

        As such is it actually quite different from miscegenation and homosexuality  taboos.

  3. Pearldiver profile image88
    Pearldiverposted 4 years ago

    OMG.... Are you serious??? 
    Is there not enough Swamp-Lust in this world already??  roll

    1. Innuentendre profile image86
      Innuentendreposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol @ swamp-lust pearldiver! The world is only experiencing the tip of a large ice-berg I'd say.

  4. Nouveau Skeptic profile image73
    Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago

    Incest laws have a lot more to do with providing safe homes and appropriate boundaries and expressing deep seated cultural imperatives.  Thus they apply equally to all genders, ages and reproductive statuses.  E.g. a condom doesn't make it not-incest and neither does homosexuality.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So how to you define "appropriate" boundaries?  Now what they are, but how do you define them?

      From the bible or other religious source?  From current local mores (and how local is local)?  From how many votes it will buy a politician?

      1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image73
        Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The line is drawn according to culture--so whatever has formed that culture.  That is why it varies from state to state and country to country. Some things are always unacceptable because they are alsmost always harmful or abusive (e.g. sex with sibling or offspring) others vary because they may not always be harmful or abusive (e.g. sex between adult first or second cousins).

        It serves politicians only to the extent it expresses the will fo the electorate.  The laws are very rarely changed because cultures are pretty fixed on deep moral imperatives.  They change only with deep paradigm shifts like civil rights revolutions.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not that I completely disagree with you, but hasn't the concept that society has a right to interfere in private lives caused much grief and pain?

          The culture said a black could not marry a white.  It says a homosexual cannot marry at all. Rich marrying poor often brings virtual ostracism from both sides, and nobility (powerful) is worse although neither is actually illegal.

          Is it always a case of the majority being right, or should the rights of the minority be protected?  Must everyone kowtow to the "feelings" of the majority regardless of harm such as siblings marrying?  Add in that it often isn't the majority, just the loudest voice, and it doesn't seem very equitable.

  5. Nouveau Skeptic profile image73
    Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago

    The avoidance of kin group mating by many free living wild animal animal species suggests it is a cultural imperative (cultural but biologically informed) not just a fad.  (Which makes it different form homosexual pairing which does occur in wild species).

  6. Greekgeek profile image96
    Greekgeekposted 4 years ago

    Incest taboos are cultural, and usually include adopted (i.e. non-biologically-related) siblings, if we're to believe the Westermarck effect. That is, children raised together from a young age seem psychologically disinclined to find one another sexually attractive. A number of studies of communally-raised children point to this.

    There's one big problem with incest that has nothing to do with biology. If anything goes wrong, it causes a family to implode: not just between the two individuals, but between everyone having to take sides. Inheritance issues also come into play, and are not trivial.

    So I don't see that same-sex laws have any bearing on incest laws, since incest laws are there for more than biological reasons.

    I think it may vary somewhat from culture to culture, however. There have been cultures such as Egypt where incest was not taboo and seemed to work (for everyday people, at least; there was enough exogamy that they didn't get too inbred, unlike royal families). But they seem to be the exception rather than the norm.

    I guess I don't see the incest taboo as an absolute, having studied different cultures, but I think it's an entirely different (and rather more complicated) issue than same-sex relationships.

    1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image73
      Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It was really only the Egyptian highest nobility that practiced incest to consolidate power and because they assumed that as Gods they could do what they wanted.  (Not so much, as it turned out).

      1. Greekgeek profile image96
        Greekgeekposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not true. At least in the Greco-Roman period, there were a surprising number of sibling marriages among commoners. Depending on the district, the legal documents show 15-30% of all marriages were such.

        We have less documentation for classical Egypt, but once they started taking census data in the Roman period, boy howdy, scholars have a little trouble sweeping the evidence under the rug (not that they didn't try, for a long time).

  7. Cheeky Girl profile image84
    Cheeky Girlposted 4 years ago

    On a rather minor but nonetheless relevant matter, same sex couples and incest conjour up a weird picture from an offspring point of view. Incest is obviously a crime involving in-breeding within families due to offspring being born with certain ailmants and illnesses due to the close proximity of family members.

    But in the case of same-sex couples, they cannot biologically reproduce. So any incest viz a viz same sex couples has to be dealt with in a seperate context.

 
working