Shrunk wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I believe it is morally wrong to produce children through incest, other than that I got nothing.

Ah, yes. That's also a good response to Agrippina's argument, which only works if the sexual activity results in procreation.

Shrunk wrote:Sorry, are you agreeing that it is immoral to eat animals? If so, then you're in the clear. People who oppose the exploitation of animals for human need or pleasure in all circumstances can make a moral case against bestiality. For others, it's not so easy.

Federico wrote: ReasonOrBust in his post (quote):

".. should be nipped in the butt;

chairman bill wrote:In many cases I'd say that there is a power imbalance, and that (at the very least) renders incest potentially abusive. I think it is right to draw a legal line in that case. Where I am a little more open to what is technically incest, is where a couple have been separated as children, then meet & get into a relationship (generally not knowing they are related). In such case, I think we need to provide genetic counselling, and I'd certainly be wary of any chance of them breeding (with all that implies for future generations), but none of this is down to morality as such.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I believe it is morally wrong to produce children through incest, other than that I got nothing.

Ah, yes. That's also a good response to Agrippina's argument, which only works if the sexual activity results in procreation.

I think you have a moral obligation that when you bring someone into the world that you afford them the best possible chance at a healthy happy life. Knowingly gambling with genetically loaded dice is not meeting that obligation in my opinion. Adopt if you want children, anything else would be purely selfish.

Shrunk wrote:

chairman bill wrote:In many cases I'd say that there is a power imbalance, and that (at the very least) renders incest potentially abusive. I think it is right to draw a legal line in that case. Where I am a little more open to what is technically incest, is where a couple have been separated as children, then meet & get into a relationship (generally not knowing they are related). In such case, I think we need to provide genetic counselling, and I'd certainly be wary of any chance of them breeding (with all that implies for future generations), but none of this is down to morality as such.

I think there is a "power imbalance" in many, if not most, relationships. We don't declare those relationships immoral or illegal on that basis.

chairman bill wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

chairman bill wrote:In many cases I'd say that there is a power imbalance, and that (at the very least) renders incest potentially abusive. I think it is right to draw a legal line in that case. Where I am a little more open to what is technically incest, is where a couple have been separated as children, then meet & get into a relationship (generally not knowing they are related). In such case, I think we need to provide genetic counselling, and I'd certainly be wary of any chance of them breeding (with all that implies for future generations), but none of this is down to morality as such.

I think there is a "power imbalance" in many, if not most, relationships. We don't declare those relationships immoral or illegal on that basis.

You don't think the power imbalance that exists between a parent & off-spring, or older brother/younger sister, is an issue?

chairman bill wrote:You don't think the power imbalance that exists between a parent & off-spring, or older brother/younger sister, is an issue?

Shrunk wrote:

chairman bill wrote:You don't think the power imbalance that exists between a parent & off-spring, or older brother/younger sister, is an issue?

When they're all adults? No.

chairman bill wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

chairman bill wrote:You don't think the power imbalance that exists between a parent & off-spring, or older brother/younger sister, is an issue?

When they're all adults? No.

UK age of consent is 16. Now, I can't imagine having sex with a 16 year old girl, but it would be legal (usual consents etc), and there's no meaningful power issues involved. But if I were her father, I think there would be. Do we have a different age of consent in such cases? How on earth would we frame such a law? Maybe "You can have sex at 16, but if you want to fuck your dad, you'll have to wait 'til you're 18"?

Agrippina wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I believe it is morally wrong to produce children through incest, other than that I got nothing.

Ah, yes. That's also a good response to Agrippina's argument, which only works if the sexual activity results in procreation.

Exactly. I don't care who people sleep with, as long as they give some thought to the children they might produce. Again: Joffrey Lannister.

Edit to add: I'm thinking about sibling incest, more than parent and child. Of course there's the question of consent. If people are having consensual sex with other people, and there are no children involved, then I'm not interested.

Shrunk wrote:

Moridin wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Would you ask for the same degree of evidence if someone claimed consensual homosexual sex was harmless?

Those two claims are not on evidential par with each other for three reasons:

(1) There is a higher prior probability that incest would be associated with psychological harm than homosexual sex would be associated with psychological harm.

Umm, OK. So I assume you wil soon be providing all that evidence, rather than just asking us to take your word that it exists, right?

(2) We have baseline evidence that suggest that incest often lacks informed consent and is usually harmful. No such evidence exists for homosexual sex.

Irrelevant, since we are specifically talking about consensual sex.

3) We have positive evidence that homosexual sex is not psychologically harmful. This is because research has found that e.g. sexually active gay men do not differ from their heterosexual counterparts in terms of psychological adjustment.

Also irrelevant, since at the moment we still have no evidence that consensual incest between adults causes any harm. Just your assurance that this evidence exists.

Moridin wrote:You are not addressing any of my points. Instead you just deny the evidence. Therefore, it is quickly becoming unproductive to continue this conversation with you. Life is too short to argue with unreasonable people.

Agrippina wrote:Joffrey Lannister is a good excuse for not having incestuous relationships. I know it's just a story but if we look at what's happened with thoroughbred animals, dogs, cats and horses, and the prevalence of race-specific diseases among humans, variety is what will keep our species healthy. If we interbreed with close relatives for long enough, we're likely experience more of the type of thing that happens with dogs. My boxer for instance has a digestive problem that my vet tells me he's seeing more and more of among boxers, which he says is a result of the practice of too much in-breeding.