CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I don't think there is anything wrong with incest as long as there is no reproduction, but child-parent incest is more wrong as the parent is in a position of control and influence, same reason as student-teacher relationships are banned.
I have nothing against same sex siblings marrying.
I don't think cases of parent-child incest would be common, but there is a possibility of this being an abuse case. (Think Craster and Gilly from the Game of Thrones books)
I don't really agree on parent-child incest because of the abuse factor, but exceptions could be made if both parties consent without any evidence of conditioning or pressuring.
To be honest, I never saw any good reason to go against incest
Common arguments are as follows:
1. Because inbreeding results into defective children
- The chances of producing defective children occurs to everyone. By this logic, are you saying that people with raised chances of defective birth should be condemned?
2. Because Westermarck Effect says that close family members should not
- Same argument was raised towards homosexuals to the point that they condemned it as a mental disorder. Same argument will be raised here
3. Because it is disgusting
- I dont think its a valid reason
Conclusion:
I can understand that Incest is a taboo subject and some people can feel disturbed by the thought of it. However, it is outrageous to claim that incest should be illegal and banned in most nations. Your thoughts?
I value your opinions a lot, Centifolia. You know I do. So, I would like your opinion on one aspect that you didnt touch on in your comments.
Under Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution, our lawmakers (congress) has the Constitutional authority and the responsibility to makes laws to protect our rights and also to promote the GENERAL welfare. That gives Congress the authority to define laws on a very wide range of issues.
In short, the way I read the article is this; Congress (representatives of the people) has the right to define the parameters for what it will and will not recognize as marriage - so long as they abide by the Constitution in doing so. The onus is then on anyone outside of their definitions to challenge them and to prove that they are too restrictive.
Sometimes there is a fine line between that which is fair and that which can be justified. Not knowing which kinds of incest relationships you are talking about - I can only assume what they are and why they are illegal.
I'm pretty sure that love is not even a requirement for marriage.
As far as whether or not it's moral to punish them? I don't think about it along those lines. The father was old enough (even if the daughter wasn't) to know that incest is illegal. Between that and the fact that ignorance of the law is no excuse... I don't have much sympathy for them - especially when I consider all the other charges and activities.
I'm pretty sure that love is not even a requirement for marriage.
You're talking about arranged marriages which are shunned upon by the civilized world
As far as whether or not it's moral to punish them? I don't think about it along those lines. The father was old enough (even if the daughter wasn't) to know that incest is illegal. Between that and the fact that ignorance of the law is no excuse... I don't have much sympathy for them - especially when I consider all the other charges and activities.
That was exactly the same excuse that slave traders, spanish inquisition, and any dictatorial country says-the law is absolute. Doesnt mean illegal doesnt mean immoral. A law that cannot be questioned is not a law but a threat
To be honest, I see your point but how is that any different than one believing gay marriage is not normal citing no reason other than its just not right?
Heterosexuality is much more common than homosexuality. Therefore I think homosexual marriage should not be allowed. That's basically what you're saying, and quite frankly, as long as you're not one of those people who are hateful to those opposed to homosexual marriage, I'm fine with that.
I don't think they should marry because I think you should spare them from the drama, that will probably happen if they were to get a divorce.
If you marry a family member, you have no chance of cutting your relationship. The former spouse will show up at birthday parties, christmas and other events.
I am not totally against family members marrying actually, I just don't think it is a very smart thing to do.
Also, you can't allow gay family members marry and not straight family members, That's unfair.
I know several people who are estranged from their families. Why do you say there is no chance of cutting a relationship with a family member?
And again, (like Mayo said) my question is more about where we should draw the line 'legally' as to what we will and will not allow as a government recognized 'marriage.'
Of course there is chance to cut your relationship with your family spouse, but you will have to cut the relationship with the rest of your family too, not so smart :/
And again, (like Mayo said) my question is more about where we should draw the line 'legally' as to what we will and will not allow as a government recognized 'marriage.'
I think you should draw the line with bestiality and necrophilia. Marriage is about love, and love has to go both ways sexually and emotionally. With those two it goes only one way, and that is from human to animal, and human to corpse, not the other way around.
I don't really have an opinion on whether incest should be legal. I think the arguments for it are valid, but I think it's a little creepy, but just because I think it's creepy shouldn't stop them from doing it.
I think we can have this discussion when the topic is like .. important. As for now there are few people who really want to marry their relative. There are thousands of homosexuals waiting for their right to marry, so I think we should be focused on giving them the rights first, since there are more of them. After that we can take up the discussion whether incest couples should marry too.
I said I found it creepy, that doesn't mean it is creepy. But yes, things aren't weird if you share it with a lot of people. If only a small group of people liked the opposite sex people would think that was creepy, unnatural, weird or whatever too.
Yes of course. No one discusses things that aren't really important. We have important things like economy and all that to discuss and fix. It doesn't make sense to change the law to please 1/100000 if not less.
Listen, I support gay marriage but I don't support incest. I do thank you for bringing up on of the 'untouched' subjects involving this mass stigma people seem to have on both subjects. There are so many technicalities, this subject could go on forever. I'll have to stick with my own, established, moral compass here.
Playing devil's advocate here... but if two brothers loved each other unconditionally and wanted the tax benefits and such that all other married coupls have... why would you (or anyone else) deny a marriage to them? It's not like they can make deformed babies or anything like that with their physical relationship. Hell, they may even remain celebate.
Fact is, I wouldn't stop it - I'd just personally not want anything to do with it. I'm not gay or anything and I'm not subject to personal affections towards siblings. The fact remains, though I do not support incest - there is no possible way I could say no to something I don't and will never understand. If there was somewhere in the middle I could stand, I would.
I didn't express any disapproval. However, I will admit that I lean in that direction and my reasoning is in line with what I said on the other side (Article 1, Section 8 - & GENERAL welfare).
Is that testing the temper of the peaceful all loving Christian God? Surely if he did something to punish the world for allowing such a dire catastrophe as same sex marriage like I dunno flooding the planet and killing everyone surely that would make him a violent deity not unlike the violent spiritual leader of Islam who you keep complaining about and according to you a religion based on the acts of a violent deity make that religion a dangerous religion of violence and its followers dangerous violent people.
When God sends forth punishment on to the world of nam he dose so as a parent disciplining their child who has done wrong. Children who break the rules are disciplined man kind is God's child.
So naughty children should be punished by death? I was going to ask were in the bible does it say that then remembered there's that passage about stoning naughty children, pretty barbaric don't you think and you have the temerity to complain about Allah and the Quran when your God and Bible isn't much better, although I suppose it explains about Catholicism and child abuse though, child is naughty, abuse it as punishment = gods work
Your a sick man. I meant when humanity as a whole loses its way god punishes us man kind as a whole is gods child we are all a part of gods child when god kills of some of us its like a father spanking his child. And fuck you for marketing a joke about the abuse of children what do you have in place of morals.
Hmm seem to have touched a nerve there, do you not like having your religion criticised and its faults pointed out, maybe you should think about that before pointing the finger yourself and flinging baseless accusations around is not sound debating especially when on shaky ground.
So you accuse me of having no morals for making a joke about the sexual proclivities of some Catholic priests, have I defended them, no but your church covers up their actions and you support that by supporting the church. I have never supported or defended child killers but you have in your defense of the IRA and you have the audacity to accuse me of being sick and having no morals, examine the splinter in thine own eye.
I support the IRAs cause of freedom not their actions, I support the teachings of the church but not nessisarily all their actions, still those things aside compareing Christianity to Islam is comparing the flu to the bubonic plague yes they both have killed people in the past but on no where near the same level.
The cause of freedom you'd be amusing if you weren't so serious, your whole attitude is sickening if I'm honest you take the moral high ground judging other people (a sin by the way) when in truth you are so morally bankrupt that you cannot bring yourself to condemn murderers, international arms and drug dealers and paedophiles. You say Islam and Christianity cannot be compared but everything you have accused Islam and its followers of Catholics are guilty of, still think there's no comparison?
I know you have mentioned before that you want to join the Police, does supporting murderers, terrorists, international arms dealers and drug dealers not cause a conflict of interest here? If a wanted Catholic Extremist was hiding out in your town would you hand him over knowing he'd get handed over to the British or keep quiet so he could escape?
First of all Catholics have never crashed plains packed with innocent civilians into buildings full of innocent civilians. Second alive said I support their cause but condemn their actions. And to answer your question about turning in an NRA member if I were a cop it would depend was I ordered to? If not is he harming the citizens with whom's safety I am entrusted? If so then yes if not then no.
No they just blow shopping centres car parks and schools, it is no more justified, with terrorists supporting their cause is supporting their actions, also discovering a wanted terrorist living amongst you and not turning them in is supporting their actions and makes you as guilty as them.
no. that would be.. well no offence to anybody but that'd be disgusting. i don't mind gay marriages, but gay marriages between family members would just be something wrong
