|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Should sex between (some types of) blood relatives be legal? |
|
|
| |
Author:Alex Deane ( United Kingdom )
Alex Deane won the World Universities Debating Championships 2004 in Singapore. |
Created: Thursday, October 07, 2004
Last Modified: Thursday, October 07, 2004
|
| |
Incest, or sexual activity between close relatives, is one of the great taboos. Although famously the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs often married their sisters, generally human societies everywhere and at every time have prohibited incest. In recent decades this revulsion has been given a genetic explanation in terms of the danger of foetal abnormality resulting from the mating of closely-related individuals. At the same time, changes in society have allowed people much more sexual freedom, with incest remaining one of the last restrictions upon sexual activity in most western countries. Given the rise of contraception, allowing sex for many people to be about recreation rather than procreation, and the increasing fragmentation of the family, which means some people only meet their brother or sister later in life, or are brought up alongside half-siblings (sharing one parent), should the absolute prohibition on incest be reexamined?
This issue is normally debated with the following restrictions imposed by the proposition:
1) Incest is intragenerational: those participating are brother/sister. Intergenerational incest (grandparent/parent/aunt/uncle-child) would still not be permitted
2) Only legal acts would be allowed – so the age of consent continues to apply and the use of force remains illegal.
There is a further restriction that is sometimes imposed:
3) Those involved undertake not to have children
Arguments are given below to cover debates both with and without this third caveat.
This article owes much to an excellent debate that took place at the 2004 Durham Intervarsity between a team from St Andrew’s, a team from Newcastle and two teams from the Glasgow University Union.
|
 |
|
|
| You can’t help with whom you fall in love. Some siblings will fall in love – not just love each other, but fall in love. Why should this kind of love be taboo? Why should these people not be able to deepen their relationship? Once, we condemned homosexuality as ‘unnatural.’ Now we know that that was untrue – and that many suffered as a consequence of that prejudice. It is true that there will be very few people affected by this – but minorities deserve protection just like everyone else, and often need it more. |
|
The comparison with homosexuality is wrong. In that situation, two adults of the same sex were consciously consenting to engage in activities that the state nevertheless forbade. The closer parallel for incest is paedophilia, given the myriad possibilities for abuse and use of power that exist, as outlined below. And whether a restriction on having offspring exists or not, the potential harm of allowing people so closely related to even risk have children is simply too great.
The idea that this area of life is sacrosanct and private is wrong too: government intervenes all the time in families: when parents take drugs or neglect or abuse their children, when people are violent.
|
 |
|
|
| The whole case against incest is based on application of biblical rules that have little to do with today’s society. Today’s society is, or should be a progressive and inclusive place, one in which individuals are free to determine the course of their own lives in the light of their own moral framework. Though many might disagree with what they want, they are entitled to it. This is part of the struggle for sexual liberation, a fight that in each battle – miscegenation, homosexuality, the liberation of women, inter-religious love – has had to overcome the old-fashioned prejudices of a bygone age. It is time for this to do so, too. |
|
The case against incest is not merely biblical – it exists in almost all religions, for the very sound reason that it is morally abhorrent: the potential for abuse is so huge, the likelihood of children who suffer terribly as a result of it so high, that this moral pressure is exerted in a way that benefits society. There is nothing wrong with beliefs being rooted in religion. Indeed, many people of faith will be tremendously offended by this proposition. There is more than a ‘yuck’ factor to this: but the instinctive ‘yuck’ we feel for some things is often rooted in the fact that it is dangerous or bad for us/those around us. The wisdom of the ages should not be ignored. |
|
|
|
| The restriction to intragenerational incest ensures that power cannot be abused in the way that it might be in intergenerational incest. Restrictions on liberty can only be justified by potential or real harm, which this lacks. The age of consent caveat in the proposition means that this is a choice being made by adults. Why shouldn’t adults choose to do this? Where is the harm, as long as children aren’t affected? To attempt to refuse siblings to mate because of potential power relationships between them is absurd: potential power exists in all relationships: between boss and worker, between clever and not so clever. We do not try to control what should happen in those examples, because they are adults, free to live their own lives and make their own decisions. Should the state intervene to stop the union of the Nobel Prize winner and her secretary, or the physically strong construction worker and the physically week office administrator, because of a potential ‘abuse of power’? |
|
Many sibling relationships involve considerable power. Much older siblings have power over younger siblings. When one or both parents die or are ill or are often away from the family unit, an older sibling often takes on a pseudo-parental role in nurturing and caring for the younger.
This is more important than other power relationship parallels, such as boss-worker, since in this one children can be groomed so that when they reach adulthood their impression of sexuality is distorted to the degree that they cannot but approve of incest. The age restriction may prevent penetrative sex between siblings when one or both are underage (but given that it will be seen as less serious in an environment in which incest is approved, even this is less certain). However, kissing and cuddling (in a different context, the natural displays of familial affection) can be used over years on an underage person to ensure that their view of sexuality is firmly based on a sexualised family environment and to ensure that, by the time they do come ‘of age,’ that they are firmly on the path to commit incest. Where better to groom a child than in the family home?
If the proposition are right, and there is fundamentally nothing wrong with incestuous relationships, and that many involving those over the age of consent contain true consensual love between two people, then why exclude the possibility of father/daughter, mother/son, father/son, etc from that? If all the principles they espouse are right, isn’t that discrimination?
Furthermore, there are harms to society in the shape of the damage to the family unit, as outlined above, and the potential for severely disabled or inbred children, as outlined below.
|
|
|
|
| Most of the problems encountered by the traditional model of family are obviously nothing to do with incestuous relationships, and those who feel romantic love for their siblings should not be punished for these social problems. It is absurd to suggest that their existence or activity would undermine the wider family model, as the vast majority of families would experience none of the issues that are so important to the few people this issue affects. |
|
The family is being undermined in myriad ways in modern society. The suggestion that sex is a viable and legitimate interaction between siblings – a suggestion legalisation implies – does so even further. The family should be about protection and care and nurture – all those functions are impaired if individuals think they should consider the possibility of romantic and physical love with their blood relatives. Thus, even families in which this new form of love is not considered will be damaged by suspicion and doubt. |
|
|
|
| The fact that incest is such a taboo means that those who are aware of society’s attitude, yet are nevertheless willing to take up the opportunities offered by this change in the law, must really love their partner – so much that they will run the gauntlet of the enormous disapproval involved. |
|
People may well be willing to bear public censure, but that doesn’t make the act right. An unrepentant murderer has still done something wrong. And on this issue, society's condemnation is about more than prurience – it is society’s interests to avoid such relationships for all the reasons stated elsewhere. |
|
|
|
| It is foolish to suggest that incest does not occur already. If we acknowledge this reality, we can ensure that those currently involved in it can obtain those things everyone else can get – counselling for their relationship, for example. As it is currently illegal, people are unwilling to seek such aid. If the proposition is to be believed, these individuals particularly need such help. |
|
Legalising incest does more than acknowledge it – it legitimises it, places a mark of state approval on it. The idea that fringe benefits to incestuous couples are worth that is a marginal one at best. |
|
|
|
| [When having children is excluded in the definition] The risks involved in blood relatives having children are vastly overstated, normally by people that oppose incest for spurious “moral” reasons. It is nevertheless acknowledged that there might be some risk and therefore those involved in incestuous relationships should undertake not to have children. [The model might then have a mechanism on binding promises, or voluntary sterilisation etc]. |
|
[When having children is excluded in the definition] Contraceptive methods and promises of forbearance both fail all the time and regulation of such "binding promises" would be impossible. The consequences of such failures are enormous for society in general and for the children of the failure in particular. It is well known that the risks involved in blood relatives procreating are enormous. Deformities are common and genetic disorders are much more likely than in the population at large. |
|
|
|
| [When having children is not excluded from the definition] The risks involved in blood relatives having children are vastly overstated, normally by people that oppose incest for spurious “moral” reasons. Furthermore, there are many people whose genes or medical history indicate their offspring might have genetic problems who are nevertheless allowed to have children. Haemophilia is a famous example. Sickle cell anaemia and Huntingdon’s Disease are others. Many cancers can be traced by genetic disposition. So too with heart disease. Should all with a predisposition to such conditions be forbidden from having children? |
|
[When having children is not excluded from the definition] The risks involved in blood relatives procreating are enormous. Deformities are common. Genetic disorders are much more likely than in the population at large. It is true that these risks are run by other groups in society. But the magnitude of the risk is for the most part much smaller than those involved in incestuous reproduction. The existence of others that run genetic risks is an argument against legalising incestuous relationships: the medical system already has enough trouble dealing with the offspring created by couples with conditions society doesn’t condemn. It may well be true that the parallels are similar in principle, but the differences exist in part because freedom, once given, cannot be taken away. Social history has developed in such a way that we don’t condemn the procreation of people with Huntingdon’s etc, and even though it might be in the interests of public health to change this, we can’t go back on the situation by changing the law (as with alcohol or cigarettes). On the other hand, human society has developed in a way that condemns incestuous procreation, and we can continue to minimise instances of that, by not changing the law (as with harder drugs).
Furthermore, the children of incestuous parents are likely to be castigated and cast out by society, and are much more likely, given the example in the home, to be incestuous themselves. Second-generation incest is even more likely to involve medical and genetic problems. |
|
|
|
| It is true that some communities are more likely to take up incestuous lifestyles than others. But so what? In some isolated communities such as Pitcairn, there’s arguably a need to. And why should people who live on the geographical fringes be thought of as intrinsically more likely to abuse rights? If we withheld rights simply because the abuse of them is hard to police, many rights would be removed. But the default position should be that rights belong to the citizenry, unless some concrete harm actually exists. As this proposition has demonstrated, it does not in the case of incest – or at least, not any more than in any other kind of relationship. |
|
Those most likely to take up the ‘opportunities’ offered by this change in the law live in remote, isolated places where abuse is even more likely to be successfully concealed. The recent case of repeated sexual abuse on the island of Pitcairn demonstrates the dangers of small societies determining their own moral agenda. This kind of abuse becomes much more likely when the state sanctions some of the acts concerned, as the argument becomes about lack of consent, which is much more difficult to prove, than about incest itself. |
|
|
|
| | This House would legalise incest
This House would keep it in the family
This House would break the taboo
|
| View the full discussion |
Author | Post |
|---|
mommasaid
Member
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 05:36 pm |
|
| In the past incest was completely necessary because transportation was limited and for there to be new generations you could not be picky on who you married. Now it is much easier to meet people and date or marry people who you are not related too. Not only does a child who is born because of incest have a higher chance for genetic mutations they also have to live with the ridicule because in most places incest is very taboo.
|
Amy Lynn
Member
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 09:16 am |
|
[font=verdana]I'm trying to look at this from both view points. I find no sexual attraction to my brother or family members. But what if I were to fall in love with a wonderful man and then later find out that we were related? I would feel unsettled and odd about having a sexual relationship with a relative, but if I was in love, I wouldn't leave the person. (Depending on how close the bloodline was, I may not have children).[/font]
[font=verdana]I suppose that it's my body and I'll do what I want with it. Morally I could not have a child with a close relative because of high risk of complications.[/font]
[font=verdana]Funny story: A few days before their wedding, my mother and father were looking at their family trees. Tracing back a few generations, they saw that all of the names matched. The blood between them is really thin, around fifth cousins (which is actually legal, I believe). I still find it funny, though. My parents are cousins. :) And I'm far from mentally retarted or disabled. I can walk, talk, read, write, and I have an IQ of 164. (But I'm extremely air headed). :P[/font]
|
silverstudent
Member
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 05:21 pm |
|
| Well as a person that looks at things from both sides or viewpoints I think that it is up to each person wether or not they agree or disagree with it. For me, I would have to say I dont agree with it because of the society I live in has said it is wrong but at the same time I accept people if they are doing this and are friends with people that have this issue in their life. But, since I am a more caring person would have a better view of it if they were in love with each other rather than just having sex or something but nevertheless I still would not ridicule them or harass them for doing something that they did not see as wrong because thats their views and I have my own and I try to not let society, government, people, or religions get in the way of those views (or shape those views).
|
|
| Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion |
|
|
|
