Progression of secularism : 'Incest is no longer a taboo,' says Australian judge Garry Neilson

[Indus Pakistan]

When Britain was defeated in America it honoured its loyalists

They were English. All those in America on both sides were migrants from Britain. One bunch of English fought another bunch of English and one branch became America. So your comparison is wrong and flawed.

That is why York, North Yorkshire sprouted New York, Boston, Lincolnshire, sprouted Boston, Massachusets, Birmingham, Midlands sprouted Birmingha, Alabama etc

 

[gambit]

The argument needs to be taken in a case by case not as a whole. In the context of incest it works. But that wasn't my main argument.

That is fine. But we still need, at least on the philosophical level, on when is incest acceptable and when it is not.

Acceptable in this context does not mean approval. Big difference in many fronts.

It is acceptable in the context of what we allow consenting adults to do without pulling the law down on their heads.

In the old days when birth control was pretty much hit-and-miss, a broad injunction against incestuous relationships can be justified. But now technology gave us near fool proof birth control, the danger of a child with genetic defects from an incestuous relationship is dramatically reduced. So now the philosophical source is complicated by technology.

Birth control is a personal decision. How do we know the incestuous couple will remain faithful to their promise of not having children ?

 

[Mo12]

Yes but Muslims do not consider wiki a revelation from the Lord Almighty nor a Prophet from him.

Makes sense, good reply.

But this is the definition in the dictionary as well, not only wiki.

 

[Mamluk]

Isnt marrying your own cousin incest?

Cousin is not sibling. Question is, where do you draw the boundary for incest?

 

[TMA]

Makes sense, good reply.

But this is the definition in the dictionary as well, not only wiki.

Guess what I am gonna now write...

Makes sense, good reply.

But this is the definition in the dictionary as well, not only wiki.

...Muslims do not consider the dictionary a revelation from God nor a messenger.

Cousin is not sibling. Question is, where do you draw the boundary for incest?

Exactly!

They were English. All those in America on both sides were migrants from Britain. One bunch of English fought another bunch of English and one branch became America. So your comparison is wrong and flawed.

That is why York, North Yorkshire sprouted New York, Boston, Lincolnshire, sprouted Boston, Massachusets, Birmingham, Midlands sprouted Birmingha, Alabama etc

Someone once described the American revolutionary war as a second civil war for England.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

But now technology gave us near fool proof birth control, the danger of a child with genetic defects from an incestuous relationship is dramatically reduced. So now the philosophical source is complicated by technology.

It is complicated but it still is no go. The rationale against it still stands on the grounds as you touched on.

1. Mistake
2. They may choose to have kids.

And there is something else, small but profound. Incest and other such relationships nurture introversion in society. You want a open looking people with investment in wider society. Introversion ( I do not mean the meaning in it's normative sense ) is not healthy for society. Thus far civilization has helped us to move from - me, to family, to clan, to tribe, to state and increasingly global sense of humanity. Incest is movement in opposite direction.

Someone once described the American revolutionary war as a second civil war for England.

Indeed it was. No idea if you did O level history but we had piece on American Revolutionery War. Some of those fighting had only recently migrated from England or sorry settled there. Others were one generation distant, other couple more but they were all from York, Birmingham, Bangor, Manchester, Sheffield, Watford, Dover, Cambridge, Exeter etc

I mean George Washington????

Washington, Tyne and Wear, UK. Wonder if he came from this cold, wet, windy dump in the north.

 

[TMA]

It is complicated but it still is no go. The rationale against it still stands on the grounds as you touched on.

1. Mistake
2. They may choose to have kids.

And there is something else, small but profound. Incest and other such relationships nurture introversion in society. You want a open looking people with investment in wider society. Introversion ( I do not mean the meaning in it's normative sense ) is not healthy for society. This far civilization has helped us to move from us, to family, to clan, to tribe, to state and increasingly global sense of humanity. Incest is movement in opposite direction.

Where would you draw the limit? First cousin, second cousin, third cousin, tribe, race?

It is complicated but it still is no go. The rationale against it still stands on the grounds as you touched on.

1. Mistake
2. They may choose to have kids.

And there is something else, small but profound. Incest and other such relationships nurture introversion in society. You want a open looking people with investment in wider society. Introversion ( I do not mean the meaning in it's normative sense ) is not healthy for society. This far civilization has helped us to move from us, to family, to clan, to tribe, to state and increasingly global sense of humanity. Incest is movement in opposite direction.

Indeed it was. No idea if you did O level history but we had piece on American Revolutionery War. Some of those fighting had only recently migrated from England or sorry settled there. Others were one generation distant, other couple more but they were all from York, Birmingham, Bangor, Manchester, Sheffield, Watford, Dover, Cambridge, Exeter etc

No I did A levels. Plus most of the history I learned is from my own readings...much of what I learned at school turned out to be the Victors' version.

That is fine. But we still need, at least on the philosophical level, on when is incest acceptable and when it is not.

Acceptable in this context does not mean approval. Big difference in many fronts.

It is acceptable in the context of what we allow consenting adults to do without pulling the law down on their heads.

In the old days when birth control was pretty much hit-and-miss, a broad injunction against incestuous relationships can be justified. But now technology gave us near fool proof birth control, the danger of a child with genetic defects from an incestuous relationship is dramatically reduced. So now the philosophical source is complicated by technology.

Birth control is a personal decision. How do we know the incestuous couple will remain faithful to their promise of not having children ?

On a slight tangent should it be illegal for two non related persons to marry one another if they have a disease that is hereditary eg. cystic fibrosis? Since if the only issue with incest is a high chance of "defective" offspring this is the case with such genetic diseases.

It is complicated but it still is no go. The rationale against it still stands on the grounds as you touched on.

1. Mistake
2. They may choose to have kids.

And there is something else, small but profound. Incest and other such relationships nurture introversion in society. You want a open looking people with investment in wider society. Introversion ( I do not mean the meaning in it's normative sense ) is not healthy for society. Thus far civilization has helped us to move from - me, to family, to clan, to tribe, to state and increasingly global sense of humanity. Incest is movement in opposite direction.

Indeed it was. No idea if you did O level history but we had piece on American Revolutionery War. Some of those fighting had only recently migrated from England or sorry settled there. Others were one generation distant, other couple more but they were all from York, Birmingham, Bangor, Manchester, Sheffield, Watford, Dover, Cambridge, Exeter etc

I mean George Washington????

Washington, Tyne and Wear, UK. Wonder if he came from this cold, wet, windy dump in the north.

So does this mean that eventually to prevent any introversion in the non normative sense of the word people should marry outside their tribe or even their race to prevent people from "regressing" from a bigger sense of identity?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Where would you draw the limit? First cousin, second cousin, third cousin, tribe, race?

Well it's grades of grey really. Incest of course is no, no. First cousin should be avoided as much as possible. Second cousin avoid it but okay. Beyond that is fine. Nobody here is saying you got to go get yourself a Moari fron New Zealand or a Eskimo from Canada. Also I guess even if it is first cousin but it is the first time I believe it is fine but problem happens when it is repeated again, again, again and again. It's like make photocopies of photocopies. Over differants cycles error will multiply with increasing deleterious effects. I read a medical report on this subject. Essentially you end up magnifing any flaws in the genes and we all have them.

No I did A levels. Plus most of the history I learned is from my own readings...much of what I learned at school turned out to be the Victors' version.

Well I did the old O levels and then A levels. I suspect you younger people do GCSE's and A levles. I think thery got replaced in late 1970s if memory serves.

 

[Menace2Society]

Progression of Islam : Becoming a confusing aggressive mess of a faith used as a tool to control women and kill indiscriminately

Get over yourselves, you can warp anything and everything. It's peoples intentions which define society. Freedom is like water and oxygen. Go suffocate in your 3rd world mindset of deprivation and scoff at others.

 

[gambit]

On a slight tangent should it be illegal for two non related persons to marry one another if they have a disease that is hereditary eg. cystic fibrosis? Since if the only issue with incest is a high chance of "defective" offspring this is the case with such genetic diseases.

No tangent at all. Absolutely related.

The danger here is that of governmental interference deep into one's life, all the way into your genetics. This could give the government the power to regulate your life in the most intimate aspects. You will have to submit to genetic testing before you can procreate, and procreation often means marriage, which means that if you are not allowed to procreate, why bother marry ?