Now, before you all decide I'm sick, let me explain!
On a Muslim discussion board, a Muslim was arguing that Islamic society condemns sex outside of marriage while Western society thinks is worthwhile. Somehow, this became a bit of a debate about right and wrong in our cultures.
I argued that in our culture, many people believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong, but because it doesn't hurt anyone else, we see it as an issue between yourself and God. In other words, I said, our culture doesn't make laws about morality unless that morality has the potential to hurt another person.
He said that this proves that our culture is based on lies, because we do not allow incest. He said sex between a sister and brother wouldn't hurt anyone, so why don't we allow it?
My response was that no one wants to do it, but I think I'm losing this argument. What do you all think? Why is incest illegal, but sex outside of marriage isn't?
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
Here is an odd site that may shed some light on the subject (I have to admit that I didn't read all of it). Click HERE ************************************************* 07-04-02, 10:48 PM GarColga My first thought is, obviously sex with a minor child is illegal, whether or not the parties are closely related. My second thought, is - is incest actually illegal? I know that some marriages between family members are not allowed, but is having sex with a sibling or parent actually illegal if both parties have reached majority and are able to give consent? My third thought is that incest is probably more common than we'd like to think.
07-04-02, 11:29 PM Minnesota gar
The exact relationships included within the meaning of incest definition varies depending upon what nation's laws are applied. Even within the United States the laws vary from state to state. In New York, for example, Section 255.25 of the Penal Law provides:
Incest. A person is guilty of incest when he or she marries or engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her, either legitimately or out of wedlock, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. Incest is a class E felony.
07-05-02, 09:55 AM Sarai Thanks! What a strange and kind of creepy issue. Anyway, this is what I ended up writing:
"Incest is something that we as a culture don't accept, and except in the case of child molestation (which does hurt others), it isn't an issue. I read somewhere that the taboo about incest is the only taboo that is found in every culture in the world, so it must be pretty strongly ingrained in us instinctively as being wrong. If there were a large amount of people who wanted to do this, perhaps it would be something we would have to discuss. But as it is, no one cares that there are laws against it because no one wants to do it. "
07-05-02, 11:44 AM Lucy The main problem with incest is the result that may happen. If two close family memebers have a child, the possibility of genetic anormailities are much stronger for example: Marriage Between Close Relations law and incest "three much smaller studies showed serious birth defects in up to one-fourth of all children that were a product of bloodline incest, an incidence that is about fifteen times the expected normal frequency." Hope this helps
07-09-02, 07:05 AM Elexina Other than the basic all-around "eewwww! that's gross!" my basic argument with incest is the genetic factor. While it has been proved of late that first cousins producing offspring does not lead to a significant amount of genetic disorders, the risks ARE high for siblings or anyone within the nuclear family -especially in a family that has practiced incest through several generations (anyone see that X-Files episode? yow.). It's kind of like dogs. When you have a purebred dog (a golden retriever, perhaps, whose lineage you can trace back generations and you KNOW that there were ONLY golden retrievers all throughout its past), it is basically a product of in-species incest. That's why purebred dogs have so many chronic health problems, where as mutts are generally healthier and less prone to, say, that brain-squeezing insanity or cancer or arthritis, etc. It is also socially unacceptable. If we had always been sleeping with our sisters and it was more of a norm, I don't think it would be nearly as big a deal (after all, we'd all have genetic disorders then). But imagine your kid trying to introduce you to his friends: "This is my mommy, and this is my uncle-daddy." Probably doesn't go over so good.
07-09-02, 07:08 AM Elexina What about Adam and Eve? As far as I remember, it was just the two of them. When they had kids, who had sex with them to continue the species? Eve. There was no one else. So, if fact, if you choose to believe in the Bible, we are ALL products of incest. I guess it's okay after all! ;-)
07-10-02, 02:05 PM XaurreauX in support of incest is intellectually self-indulgent and basically advocates throwing caution to the wind. He fails to prove in the face of available data to the contrary that children in an incestuous relationship will not be harmed.
Incest can only be considered legally (or possibly philosophically) acceptable by the fact that sex between consenting adults in private should be considered a basic right. Mind you, that still doesn't mean that no one will be hurt because emotions and relationships will be subject to intense strain.
Personally, I don't recommend it.
07-25-02, 02:52 PM Runic StormCrow If both partners consent, what's wrong with it? If one doesn't like having a sexual relationship with the other one, then wouldn't it be rape on a regular basis?
And, P.S., sex before marriage SHOULD be legal. Having an avid sex life is *ONE* way to stay healthy, mentally and physically. And if you do make it illegal, then you'd better make masturbation illegal, cause it's the same principle.
-RSC
07-29-02, 12:29 PM mahal Here we are, taking advice on sex from a person named "Punkerslut"! wink
What I find interesting in the Bible is that, while incest was considered a hideous crime by Moses (one rewarded with the death penalty), incest was a family tradition up to that time.
Combining the stories of Genesis 11 with Josephus' version, you get the following:
Abraham married his neice, Sarah Nahor (Abraham's brother) married Milcah (Sarah's sister)
These came about because of the death of Haran, who was the father of Lot, Sarah, and Milcah, and Terah (Abraham's father) would not allow either the widow or the children to marry outside the family. (If my calculations are correct, Abraham and Sarah married when they were 18 and 8 years old.) The fact that they were so closely related is somewhat borne out by their inability to have children.
This tradition was so strong that both Isaac and Jacob left Canaan and traveled all the way back to northern Mesopotamia, where their relatives lived, to select their wives. On the other hand, Esau wanted to **** off his father (Isaac) and did so by not marrying inside the family (he took foriegn wives).
Moses did, however encourage marriage within the nation. Israelites were always to marry Israelites. Today, Jews are known to have some minute genetic conditions unique to their ethnic group.
My own reasons for not wanting to have sexual relations outside the standards set by Moses, Jesus and Paul are on religious grounds. They have very little to do with the law or tradition or any practical reason, but they have everything to do with my relationship with God. (I consider marriage to be symbolic of our intimacy with God.) So I'm never surprised or offended by others who have more wild tendancies, as long as no one is hurt or forced, since they may not have my convictions.
11-29-02, 02:26 PM jusork Hmmmm, this is interesting. Other than genetic disaster, there doesn't seem to be a real good reason for it to be wrong. There doesn't seem to be a reason for it to be immoral either, just odd.
11-29-02, 11:59 PM honilov Whether it's wrong or illegal, a person that wants to have sex with a family member, has a mental problem. They need to seek help.
11-30-02, 07:06 AM shona This is adifficult issue. Certainly the genetic defects caused are a good argument against incense but things can become complicated. 1st cousins, brothers and sisters are illegal but what if you go further out to 3rd cousins you may not even know and full in love. I also don't think theres any law against it yet technically it's incest. Within the Orthodox jewish tradition you are taught to marry only within your own faith. There are blood ties and so technically this could also be classified as incense. Love and Peace, SHONA!!
11-30-02, 04:56 PM honilov I think that teaching to marry only in your own faith, is very selfish. That's just like saying "our faith" is better than the next. I'm Baptist, and if I fall in love with a Jew, I would be just as happy with him as I would if he was a Baptist. It doesn't matter who we are, as long as our blood run "red."
12-01-02, 01:02 PM kittypal There are a lot of people who fall in love with first cousins and I believe it is illegal to marry brother, sister, aunt, uncle, parent, or grandparent, but not illegal to have sex with them. If someone is underage or not willing then it is a different issue. The reason it's so gross is because when we grow up with a sibling you tend not to see them in a sexual way and our older relatives are supposed to be someone to look up to not have sex with. It is interesting though.
12-01-02, 02:13 PM jusork Honilov, how does loving someone in your family make you a sick person? I mean they are just like any other person you could love, right? Good point to Kittypal. And to your second post, I think a lot of conflict would come from two devout people of two different religions who can't decide what to teach their kids and which church to go to, etc. So maybe selfish is a little harsh. Sure they're the same but not the same enough.
I always find it funny when people say we all draw the same blood because lots of animals draw blood, too and seldom do we put their rights right next to ours. (I know, it's just a saying. wink)
12-01-02, 04:26 PM honilov Jusork, I didn't say loving, I said having sex with a family member. Maybe I've been in the dark, and don't understand the behaviors of a lot of people, but if I ever had sex with a family member, I would hope that someone in the family would seek help for me, because I would have a screw loose.
As far as the two religions, and not knowing what to teach their kids, well, why not start by just teaching them what's right, instead of putting everything in catagories. A child can be included in both religions, as long as the truth is being told. When most get grown, they do what they want to anyway, regardless of their teachings.
And so far as the animals are concerned, when they start working, paying taxes, falling in love and getting married, going to church, etc., then we will compare them to us, because they will have earned it. By the way, I've always heard that there are only two kinds of living things, which are plants and animals. We are no plants, so......
Peace, love ya lots
12-03-02, 04:21 PM jusork Well, Honilov, I still don't agree (if you love someone, it doesn't matter what you do with them; since they're just like any other person (your sibling, etc is a person, too), I don't really see how making love to them automatically makes you a sick person), but since we haven't come to any conclusion yet and I'm not trying to convince anybody, I'm not planning on going more than necessary (unless you want to which is fine by me).
The 2nd part: I think devout people make it harder. One person wants their beliefs they believe in so much and don't believe the other person's beliefs so why would they have that person's over the important/right one. They could probably agree on somethings but there could always be something that just won't work with the other.
I agree with the animal part though.
Thanks. Peace and love to you, too. smile
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
you said extra-marital relationships in western societies are fine as fine as they hurt no one and that it is only between the perpetrator and God.
to this i must say:
what planet are you on? i think your religous beliefs have gotten in the way of clear thinking. extra-marital relationships ruin people's lives left and right, and it's more than "GOD." you are basically saying that we must serve god, over all, and whatever we do on earth, it's fine, as long as we are ready to take it up with god.
Incest is illegal because genetic diversity helps ensure a species survives. The more closely you are related to someone, the more likely that you will both carry the same recessive genes (recessive genes only have an effect when one is inherited from each parent). These recessive genes are often harmful. Many animals have strong instincts preventing them from breeding with close relatives and many plants have mechanisms that prevent them from fertilizing themselves.
Less closely related people have less chance of having the same recessive genes. Even so, groups that have a limitted gene pool are more likely to have genetic diseases. Ashkenazie jews (apologies if i misspelled this), for example, have have a limited gene pool both because they do not tend to marry outside of their ethnicity and because events like the holocaust have cut down the size of the group.
you said extra-marital relationships in western societies are fine as fine as they hurt no one and that it is only between the perpetrator and God.
to this i must say:
what planet are you on? i think your religous beliefs have gotten in the way of clear thinking. extra-marital relationships ruin people's lives left and right, and it's more than "GOD." you are basically saying that we must serve god, over all, and whatever we do on earth, it's fine, as long as we are ready to take it up with god.
wake up and smell the truth. you are sad.
Sorry, I just saw this post today. So several months late, I want to clarify what I said. I did NOT say extra-marital relationships are fine. I said that in the West we do not put people in jail or punish people in any sigificant way for having them. In fact, we even allow people with a history of cheating on spouses to marry new spouses. The reason we don't punish them is not because we have no morals (which was the belief of the person I was arguing with), but because although most of us (myself included) believe that they are wrong, the truth is that extra-marital relationships do not pose any real danger to our society. Since they don't pose a danger, we don't have any real laws against them. The issue of whether it is right or wrong is between you and your God (or your conscience, or whatever is your moral measuring stick), and not really the business of our legal system.
I said this in response to a Muslim from the Middle East who was arguing that our society is amoral because we "tolerate" extra-marital relationships. I disagree, because as much as I think extra-marital relationships are on the wrong side of things, I just don't think cheaters should be sent to jail (or stoned to death).
He then went on to say that if that's the case, then why don't we allow incestuous relationships? He then called us hypocrites and I singlehandedly lost that argument!
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
In Muslim society ordinarily Islam is the state. Both Islam and the state, therefore, outlaw sex outside of marriage, religion being the determining factor. Since in America religion is not the state, sex outside of marriage is tolerated as a private act between two consenting partners. There are, of course, times when adult, minor, or familial partners object to such sex outside of marriage. For example, both an adult and a minor can cry rape. Laws against incest have both religion and state origination, but the Muslim objected to the seeming hypocrisy in the fact that incest may be another instance of crying rape but is also denigrated by laws covering those who are consenting. I think that Sarai omitted in her argument with the Muslim that a family member consenting to engage in incest requires extra legal protection, because same may be under duress, under abuse, under too much impressionability. In other words, there may be a lack of truly free consent. Yet, when the two engaging in incest are adults . . . well, after the victory in the U.S. Supreme Court for homosexuals against sodomy laws, this situation is expected to possibly become tolerated.
All this tendency in America away from religion and towards a do-it-yourself (anti-God) lifestyle is what makes those who are very religious point fingers and proclaim that American society is going down the drain. Such would not be the case if the media did not portray sexual liberality as the preferable order of the day. However, interestingly there is an expectation that such other liberal practices as abortion may be done away with in time, only as such practices become viewed as detrimental and repugnant to the American democratic majority. Some hope and some pray and some do both regarding the minds and hearts of Americans, namely, that they do know exactly when too far is too far and amend their ways and their laws.
Finally, we must continue to realize that morality cannot be legislated, meaning that all the legislation in America cannot create a moral and certainly not a religious American citizenship, because Americans are free and will never allow oppressive laws to dictate to them limits to their freedom. Sure Muslim countries can legislate morality, but it works because such legislation is accompanied by fear, which hath torment, and actual instances of torture.
So which is worse: immorality even with atheism or a barbaric "big brother," since we are discussing incest? I think that most Americans will agree that freedom from terror goes a long way toward enabling more and more to make intelligent--and hopefully moral and possibly also religious--decisions. Generally, Muslims may live with or without sex, but Muslims also most likely live with (no alternative allowed) terror.
[This message was edited by tsaeb on 10-25-03 at 03:02 AM.]
