Vote totals:
Yes:
50%
No:
50%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: ADULT INCEST SHOULD BE LEGALISED
ADULT INCEST SHOULD BE LEGALISED
Homosexuality was once regarded in the same manner as incest, but is now widely legalised and accepted
As little as 50 years ago, men and women were still being imprisoned for practising homosexuality as it was regarded as ‘immoral’ or ‘unnatural’. Nowadays it is widely accepted in the Western world and has been legalised in most Western countries. There are Gay Rights movements and groups that lobby successfully for equal opportunities and against discriminatory legislation, and most liberal-minded people accept the right for consenting adults to practise their sexuality however they see fit.
It seems unreasonable and illogical not to apply these same enlightened views to those who wish to practise incest. We ought to strive to overcome the taboo, just as those before us overcame the taboo of homosexuality.
The taboo on incest is a social construction. Current legislation merely legitimises one particular point of view.
If we are talking about medical reasons to not allow incest, I point out that generally people within the same family will carry the same recessive genes that cause deformities, illnesses, and in some cases sterility. Other than that, Just because something is accepted more doesn’t mean that it is right. It is unreasonable to apply the word enlightened to these views. Incest is not a social construction, but religious. It pertained to sister/brother, mother/son, father/daughter, and interaction between some in-law relations.
ADULT INCEST SHOULD BE LEGALISED
Adult incest is no more ‘unnatural’ than abstinence or contraception
Those who seek to dismiss the right of those who practise incest often use the argument that it is unnatural or against human nature. In this regard, refraining from sex or using contraception could be regarded in a similar way, yet very few liberal-minded people would wish to ban contraception or to make abstinence illegal. To show the absurdity of such an argument, one could also regard the wearing of clothes or the use of cars ‘unnatural’ and ‘against human nature’.
It is not enough to say that incest is against nature. At the very least, the idea of human ‘nature’ should be properly defined so that we can all make sure we are arguing the same subject.
Nature is not a person, it is personified by people, and that does not give them the right to impose upon it their personal prejudices so that they can claim them as innate human traits.
It is more natural not to procreate at all than to procreate and produce a child that is unhealthy, so it is NOT just as unnatural to be abstinent or to practice safe sex.
Surely the fact that a child would be deformed as a result of an incestuous relationship is indicative that it is inherently unnatural.
To what extent are we trying to redefine what is inherently abnormal in order to label ourselves a ‘progressive’ species?
Cultural allowances should reflect cultural attitudes and prevailing moral codes. To permit something on the presumption that it is someone’s ‘right’, regardless of the social and physical consequences, is inherently shallow.
You seem to be using the word natural in a sense that would only be relevent to all animal spicies as a whole.i.e. a dog would not naturally refrain from sex, a camel would not naturally wear a condom, and anteater would not naturally wear chainmail. However, we are different from other species in that we know how procreation works and what we can do to strengthen our species. That is why we are instictively (or naturally) disinterested in our siblings. Sociology is the study of human nature, but I doubt that you will find any definitive answer on human behaviour.
ADULT INCEST SHOULD BE LEGALISED
Consenting adult incest is NOT to be confused with child abuse
At no point do these arguments condone or accept adult-child incest or non-consensual interfamilial sexual relationships. These arguments exclusively regard consenting adults, therefore should NOT be confused with any other type of incestuous relationship.
Actual abuse or rape as a result of not having consent from both people should always be punished. Abuse would never be legalised, whether it occurred between two adults or an older adult and a teenager. Incest would only be legal if the sexual relationship were consensual.
If it were legalised at the same age as other sexual acts (i.e., in Britain, 16 or 18) then it still could lead to abuse as adults in a family could abuse a teenager and call it ‘legal’. Also, in the case of the Fritzl family in Austria, the father abused his daughter since childhood, and raped her multiple times. Yet she was, for most of her time in imprisonment, she was over the age of consent. Legalising incest would lead to more tragic and horrific cases like Elisabeth Fritzl, who has missed out on living her life. Her father, if incest were legal, could claim that the sex was consensual, and also, she may have developed Stockholm syndrome, in which the captive ‘prisoner’ becomes attached to the captor.
ADULT INCEST SHOULD BE LEGALISED
Relatives can have corporate health benefits
If incestuous marriage was legalised, you could marry a sick relative for the purpose of sharing health benefits that would normally go to your spouse.
The legalisation of adult incest does not mean that marriage between close relatives would also become legal. Such a move would totally undermine the values of the traditional family, even more than merely protecting incestuous couples from prosecution.
Even if this step were to be taken, exploiting the institution of marriage is still wrong. There have been cases where UK citizens have agreed to marry immigrants, sometimes in return for payment, so that they can stay in the country. This undermines the value of marriage as a union between two loving partners and turns it into a cynical business transaction. Government immigration officers investigate such marriages in order to prevent this kind of fraud. Surely marrying a relative in order to exploit your health insurance is just as deceitful, and a negative rather than positive result of the legalisation of incest?
ADULT INCEST SHOULD BE LEGALISED
Incest could lead to children with congenital deformities and disabilities
Heterosexual people who carry genetic deformations that would result in a child with a disability are not prevented from having sex. Continuing legislation against incestuous relationships on the grounds of genetic abnormalities must logically lead to preventing heterosexual relationships where similar genetic abnormalities could occur. This would be thought outrageous and against human liberty (and rightly so). Why should it therefore only apply to incestuous relationships?
Is it not also conceivable that many incestuous couples would not wish to conceive a child with a disability? Should these people not be given the freedom and respect of sexual freedom if they have chosen not to have children? A blanket ban is unreasonable and small-minded.
Comparing incest with homosexuality is obscene! One of the problems, if not the biggest problem is the fact that children born from incestuous parents almost always have deformities, are retarded or have other serious problems. This is a proven fact. Homosexual partners don’t create children therefore the comparison shouldn’t even be discussed. It is the offspring of the incestuous partners that should be thought about. Surely knowing that a child has a huge chance of being born with congenital deformities or disabilities should put people off! Incest shouldn’t be allowed on these grounds.
ADULT INCEST SHOULD BE LEGALISED
It is unnatural and against God
On the contrary, incest was common in Ancient Egypt and, most likely, a lot further back. This would imply that it is somewhat natural, as it has obviously been something people have enjoyed for centuries.
The argument that incest is wrong "because the Bible says so" doesn’t hold any weight in a situation that takes place outside of church. Many people believe in different gods, different spiritual paths or have no spiritual beliefs. One religious view should not dictate the actions of the human race as a whole.
Finally, humans very rarely have sex for the purpose of procreation. Most often, humans have sex for the purpose of mutual pleasure.
This is exactly what legalizing consenting adult incest is about: allowing people who desire each other to fulfill their mutual desires.
God created humans for procreation, and incest is against human nature.
ADULT INCEST SHOULD BE LEGALISED
Legalising incest could lead to abuse within a family
Legalising something does not automatically make it widespread. Abuse is not part of incest, and should always be illegal and punished whatever the circumstances. There is absolutely no reason to believe that people would abuse one another following the legalisation of incest, as the legislation only applies to a minority.
If everyone thinks it is ok to be incestuous, then what is to stop everyone from sleeping with their siblings? It would lead to abuse and many family problems.
ADULT INCEST SHOULD BE LEGALISED
Historically, the legalities have always been hazy
This point is not only contradictory, but utterly irrelevant given the previous points which have already refuted its central claims. Simply because ‘free thinking’ societies have seen incest as wrong and an ‘oddity’ for so long does not mean that it is morally right to outlaw it. Please see previous points for elaboration on this fallacy.
The fact that it is ‘a crime nonetheless’ is also irrelevant. The law does not hold innate moral values – it is society which dictates which are to be upheld and which aren’t. There are still so-called laws that make no sense to us ‘free thinking societies today and so although totally lawful, are chosen not to be upheld (the internet has many sites dedicated to such bizarre laws).
Thirdly, to say that the etymology of the word incest renders the action it describes as unlawful or immoral is not only inaccurate, but as flawed a reason as the previously described law fallacy. Words do not have innate meanings, but are imbued with meanings by society. To use a famous example, ‘a rose by any other name would smell as sweet’ – if one called a rose a stinkweed, it would not lose any of its inherent properties, nor should it. Whether incest is called ‘devil’s-romping’ or ‘humanist love’ it would make no difference to the values of the act itself.
It is a fair and just point for the ‘for’ argument of this debate that incestuous relations occurred in the higher echelons of ancient societies: the Romans, Egyptians and, I believe, Inuits were or are accepting and in acknowledgement of this fact. The point can also be made that one cannot control who one has an attraction, physical or otherwise, to. However it is clear that most free thinking societies for any number of years have seen incest as ‘wrong’, as an oddity. Agreeably, it may be a victimless crime, but a crime it is nonetheless, dating back to the original etymology of the word around half a millennium ago.
ADULT INCEST SHOULD BE LEGALISED
Grooming and the family dynamic
Even if an age of consent applied to legalised incest, the unique nature of the family would mean that relationships could not be easily limited to this time frame. This does not mean the potentiality of minors having sexual relationships, but rather the ability of an older sibling to "groom" the child, ie. deliberately creating a relationship with a child who does not understand it fully which would later lead to a sexual relationship. All healthy relationshios must be based on a power balance: no one party should have undue influence or control over the other. This kind of relationship clearly violates any balance of power.
The family should also maintain its unique position as a support network for the individual, within which relationships should be distinct from the others formed in society. Incestual relationships with siblings would threaten to undermine the role played by the family in this aspect, drive wedges between families and lead to family break-up which has a whole host of associated problems.
