Human laws are irrelevant here, The laws of nature, and genetics take precedent. Incestuous people are like GM scientists, in it for greed and lust and to he'll with the consequences. It has been wrong since the beginning, outcast since the beginning and no amount of liberal thinking will produce a strong enough case that will change how nature makes us think about these acts. Pro-incest arguments reveal just a little too much about the prescribed.

Seems to be a pet subject of yours!! However, I believe that incest laws were probably introduced to avoid the probability of defective offspring being porduced as a result of incestuous coupling.

Huh? Last time I heard this line of argument trotted out, it was about fellatio, and all the squint-eyed banjo players were on your side of the question (i.e. opposed to such an obviously unnatural act.) What's different?

Yes . . . thousands of years before we had contraception.

If a brother and sister who wanted to marry agreed to be sterilized, how could you object to that if your initial objection was related to procreation?

So you want this law repealed for what purpose ? Nature wins this argument, not a ballot box. Your arguments just fall to the ground. To you the Earth is flat...

Merely comparing like with like.


Indeed. In the days before contraception. Now that contraception is available, is there a single good reason to argue against the right of adults to sleep with other consenting adults?

You speak of man made laws and morality...Observe what nature has to say on the topic.

Animals shag their siblings and offspring all the time.

What's your point?

(The last time I heard the "unnatural" argument trotted out, it was being used by nutty religious extremists to talk about oral and anal sex )

Sure they were - and like fornication laws, they were a brilliant idea at the time. But also like fornication laws, they've pretty much outlived their social utility. It is no longer a given that sexual partnership will result in 6-10 children (or death in childbed, whichever comes first) and so the legitimate need to regulate sexual behavior for the greater good is much less.

I have not said that I objected; sterilised brothers and sisters can do whatever they like, assuming that the laws were repealed. However, I still maintain that it is morally ill-conceived, notwithstanding all DB's arguments relating to buggery, falatio, etc etc.

What he said. ^^ Ever spent any time on a farm? Bulls don't care if the cow in heat in the next pasture is related to them or not; neither do stallions, rams, roosters, ganders... (Nor does the female of the species for that matter - lest you think I'm trying to pin it all on the menfolk.)

On what grounds?

And what right has government to dictate sexual morals where consenting adults are involved?

So, does that imply that you are pro incestuouos relationships?

That's a somewhat bizarre question, isn't it?

The purpose of repealing the law is so that consenting adults aren't prosecuted for something which does absolutely no harm to anyone else.

By the way, if you're main aim here is to prevent the production of 'defective' offspring, are there other groups you'd like to target, perhaps with sterilization or gene therapy? The urge to do away with those with genetic illnesses would seem more at home in the 1930s when eugenics was popular.

Your style of discussion this evening doesn't seem particularly level.

Not at all, given the quote that I was referring to ...

...unnatural. Acted against by nature in humans. Nature hardwires humans against the act. If you aren't against it, check your wiring.

Morally ill-conceived on what basis? Where are you getting your morality from and why should others be subject to it?

If I defend the right of Muslims to eat halal meat, does that mean that I am pro-halal meat?

I don't think so...

Incest laws are a direct expression in juridical area of the cultural taboo linked to incest. Religion is another expression of such culture and reinforce as a moral authority such a taboo. Clear text: it's in the old testament.
The true question in Europe was the limit in the cousin line. There were areas where only cousin of second degree and above could mary with each other, other areas allowed also first degree (In Lapland, norwegian Finnmark until after the war. Special dispensation possible until recently).