Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Charles Darwin married his first cousin a Wedgewood and it was quite a bit more common in Victorian England than today although many in Royal Families married first and second cousins. Absolutes appear to change over time.
Fair enough if religious rules or laws are the reason you provide for being opposed to incest then would it also be true that other than it is interpreted that homosexually is a sin there are no other reasons to oppose it? I mean the OP is all about one religious person claiming that if one supported homosexuality one had to support incest. So are the only reason for opposing both of these is the fact that is may or may not be in a book?
As I stated already atheists have been willing to put their opposition or non opposition to incest with reasons however most theists can only say it is immoral because that is what the books say. I believe that with this discussion I have been able to clarify my thoughts on the subject thanks to the comments of others and a discussion to think about. I think the chances of two siblings growing up with no knowledge of each other getting together as adults is more likely to happen in a movie or a novel than in real life, therefore I do not think that people ever leave the family dynamics behind them hence I think that for that reason incest is not moral as I do not believe that there can be with certainty informed consent. Cupper once again we disagree on a stance or viewpoint, does that now make us enemies?
And is the Yuck factor more cultural or religious?
For me the Yuck factor is cultural and personal, if the cultural factor is taken away, then the personal factor will diminish and vanish, too, with time.
Charles Darwin married his first cousin a Wedgewood and it was quite a bit more common in Victorian England than today although many in Royal Families married first and second cousins. Absolutes appear to change over time.
With cousins, unless they literally grew up together nuclear family-style (some do) it's not quite the same dynamic, IMO, because you have actually grown up and matured in two different families. You probably do not have a sibling dynamic going on.
In addition, in many (though not all - not in Darwin's! But let's be realistic about Victorian marriage and age here...we're talking girls as young as 13 or so) such cases, the male was older than the female and the female felt she had less choice; so I would say that counts as coercion in 21st century terms, though it would have been considered quite normal indeed (for a girl to follow the man's lead because she knew she "should" or "must", and yes, I do use the terms girl + man there deliberately).
And yes, close marriage was more common in days gone by in some cultures, sometimes because the pair wanted it, and often because they did not - for example, monarchies trying to keep the blood "pure." (Didn't Cleopatra try to kill her husband/brother? Or maybe she just wanted to. I can relate, Cleopatra, except I didn't have to marry mine...)
Charles Darwin married his first cousin a Wedgewood and it was quite a bit more common in Victorian England than today although many in Royal Families married first and second cousins. Absolutes appear to change over time.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by rent.in.nyc
I am talking about emotional harm to the Parents if their children choose so!
Let's say "oldfashioned" parents have a son and a daughter who engage in "incest," that would give them emotional pain, don't you think so?
Although I say, to each their own, but if it were my kids I would suffer, because still in our times it is seen as incest.
One can carry that 'emotional harm' to many other things. What if the parents are fundamentalists and their child is homosexual? What if they expect their child to be a professional, and that child becomes a blue collar worker? Etc. Etc.
One can carry that 'emotional harm' to many other things. What if the parents are fundamentalists and their child is homosexual? What if they expect their child to be a professional, and that child becomes a blue collar worker? Etc. Etc.
I am talking about emotional harm to the Parents if their children choose so!
Let's say "oldfashioned" parents have a son and a daughter who engage in "incest," that would give them emotional pain, don't you think so?
Although I say, to each their own, but if it were my kids I would suffer, because still in our times it is seen as incest.
As a rule, what their children opt for as of the age of consent, is something the parents should understand and not wring their hands over. They are in a position to give advice or their views at least, but the children are not obliged to take it, though it would be nice if they had good reasons for it rather than just ignoring good advice. And the parents will just have to grow up and not get upset because heir children do not necessarily share their views.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
