A socio-economic argument against incest is that if everything "stays within the family", the family will have less influence over other people in the community, thus weakening socio-economic cohesion.
— baker
I don’t think it’s common for any family to have any involvement or influence in the community in this modern age to begin with. — TheHedoMinimalist

Last I checked, nepotism is still going strong.

I think most people interact with the community to put food on their table more so than anything involving romantic relationships.

Then this here is a clue to some underlying assumptions for why people marry: I think strategic alliances to improve one's socio-economic standing have been the main motivator for marriage throughout history, and still are nowadays, once people mature a bit.

I guess I should also point out that seems highly unlikely that incest would ever be so widespread in any society that it would have this sort of big macro effect.

It would have a considerable effect for those involved. Historically, this is one of the reasons why some for of incest was practiced by royal families. For those families, it was important to stay in power and to increase their power, and marriage was a strategic tool for this. As needed: sometimes, to keep the power all in the family, a marriage between close relatives; other times, marrying outside the family for political and economic gains.

Again, we'd need to consider the miscarriage rate and the abortion rate, as compared to those rates in the normal population. I imagine they are both higher in the incestuous population.
— baker
I don’t think those are overly high either. I think older couples that try to have children also have really high miscarriage rates but I don’t think you would use that as an argument against them having children. — TheHedoMinimalist

No, but those rates being higher would be something to consider when trying to estimate the frequency of incest. If no children are born from a relationship, then it can be harder to prove a relationship exists at all; assuming that incestuous couples are more likely to try to hide their relationship.

c

It's about reasonable expectation. Having a child at all does not lead to a reasonable expectation that the child will have genetic defects. Having a child with your own sibling or parent or offspring does. — Kenosha Kid

The question is whether it should be taken for granted that people know or believe this, or that they should.

A while back, in Germany, a brother and a sister who grew up separately in foster homes, found eachother after many years, got romantically involved, and produced, IIRC, two children at the time, and promised to have more. None of their children that far seemed genetically defective.

Even in an incestuous relationship, it's possible to have luck in the genetic lottery. So in the face of that, it can be hard to believe in the principle that incestuous couples are more likely to produce genetically defective offspring.

I don’t understand why we hate incest if we acknowledge that homosexuality is ok — TheHedoMinimalist

Do we??

It seems to me that very few people actually support homosexuals and think they are normal human beings. It seems to me that most people think homosexuals are bad, wrong, immoral, but they just don't say that in public because thy don't want trouble. Just because homosexuals might not be stoned to death in a particular community anymore doesn't mean that the community supports them.

This just popped into my head. It would be stating the obvious that homophobia is a distinctly religious phenomenon, that too almost-exclusively a feature of the Abrahamic religions.

If so, one only has to read the book of Genesis to realize that if humamity started off with one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), incest was/is inevitable.

Suppose now that homosexuality is less/equally sinful than/as incest. If so, homosexuality should be permisssible.

The only way the Abrahamic triad can object to homosexuality is if it's worse than incest. Is it? I'd like to hear from you.

Incest-Homosexuality Study
Department of Ethics

Question 1. Suppose you're a straight person held at gunpoint. Your captor gives you two choices. Either sleep with someone who's the same sex as you (homosexuality) or sleep with your child (incest). (Ignore the possibility that your child is the same sex as you in which case you would be an incestuous homosexual). What would you choose?

a) Have sex with someone who's the same sex as you (homosexuality)

b) Have sex with your child (incest)

In short, which is the lesser evil, homosexuality or incest?

If so, one only has to read the book of Genesis to realize that if humamity started off with one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), incest was/is inevitable. — TheMadFool

I pointed this out to a Catholic once, and she was deeply offended and called me immature and disrespectful. There appears to be an unwritten agreement that the biblical account is not to be taken literally.

The Pope is quite happy to preach the non-literalness of the Bible: https://www.thetrumpet.com/7757-pope-dont-take-bible-literally

So in the face of that, it can be hard to believe in the principle that incestuous couples are more likely to produce genetically defective offspring. — baker

Because one couple didn't? This is doing statistics wrong.

I pointed this out to a Catholic once, and she was deeply offended and called me immature and disrespectful. There appears to be an unwritten agreement that the biblical account is not to be taken literally. — baker

The idea that the biblica sacra is to be interpreted metaphorically was at the back of my mind but that point of view does more damage to the Abrahamic triad than my accusations of incest, no? Much of the evidence for God, miracles to be precise, wouldn't amount to much if it were all symbolism.

Putting births aside, incest is extremely hardwired in most cultures (all?) as being unacceptable. If it weren't for the babies part, what makes it feel repugnant?

There's the issue of abuse of minors, that's obviously horrific. So we'd have to put that aside to. So incest would be ok IF precaution is taken to avoid making a baby and IF there is no child abuse going on.

I don't have any studies or anything, but I'd suspect that sexual desire of a family member would usually begin early in life. I remember reading The Incest Diary, by a daughter who was abused by her father. It was very strange to read.

Sex began early, but I don't recall her calling it rape (or abuse, I don't recall the terminology she used) until later on, which makes sense. Many victims don't know what rape or abuse is until they're older.

I'm just having a hard time understanding incest, must be biological.

It would have a considerable effect for those involved. Historically, this is one of the reasons why some for of incest was practiced by royal families. For those families, it was important to stay in power and to increase their power, and marriage was a strategic tool for this. As needed: sometimes, to keep the power all in the family, a marriage between close relatives; other times, marrying outside the family for political and economic gains — baker

You seem to think that incest is bad in the same sort of way that having lots of credit card debt is bad. But, I think most people think incest is bad in the same way they think that pedophilia is bad. They seem to think that it’s like full blown evil. I don’t disagree with you that incest might be prudentially unwise for a myriad of reasons and under a myriad of circumstances. I just don’t think it’s evil or anything like that. That’s kinda along the lines that I was comparing incest to homosexuality.

If so, one only has to read the book of Genesis to realize that if humamity started off with one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), incest was/is inevitable. — TheMadFool

I’m pretty sure the Bible does have some bad things to say about incest though. I think it probably contradicts itself on this issue.

Question 1. Suppose you're a straight person held at gunpoint. Your captor gives you two choices. Either sleep with someone who's the same sex as you (homosexuality) or sleep with your child (incest). (Ignore the possibility that your child is the same sex as you in which case you would be an incestuous homosexual). What would you choose? — TheMadFool

I think we would need to know whether or not your child desires to have sex with you compared to how much the same sex stranger desires to have sex with you. Do you have to rape them or do they give reluctant consent or are they thrilled to have sex with you? If it’s rape or reluctant consent, then I think you are better off having sex with the same sex stranger because I think it’s better to harm a stranger than it is to harm your own child and if it’s enthusiastic consent then I don’t think it matters much either way. Though, I’m also assuming that you don’t want me taking into account factors like the risk of pregnancy and STDs or the age of the child or the same sex stranger for the purposes of this hypothetical.

if it’s enthusiastic consent then I don’t think it matters much either way. — TheHedoMinimalist

You mean to say homosexuality = incest. That's why you "...I don't think it matters much either way..."

So, if a man who has sex with his son (homosexuality + incest) = the same man having sex with his daughter (incest).

In other words, homosexuality + incest = incest. Speaking for myself, that doesn't make sense.

You mean to say homosexuality = incest — TheMadFool

Not really, I’m saying that homosexuality and incest are morally equivalent unless certain practical considerations such as the risk of pregnancy are mentioned. Saying that something is equivalent isn’t the same as saying something is identical. For example, 10 dimes are monetarily equivalent to a dollar bill but they are obviously not the same thing as a dollar bill. I don’t think it matters who you have sex with unless someone can mention some kind of a practical reason for why you maybe shouldn’t have sex with a particular person.

Not really, I’m saying that homosexuality and incest are morally equivalent unless certain practical considerations such as the risk of pregnancy are mentioned. Saying that something is equivalent isn’t the same as saying something is identical. For example, 10 dimes are monetarily equivalent to a dollar bill but they are obviously not the same thing as a dollar bill. I don’t think it matters who you have sex with unless someone can mention some kind of a practical reason for why you maybe shouldn’t have sex with a particular person. — TheHedoMinimalist

You said

if it’s enthusiastic consent then I don’t think it matters much either way — TheHedoMinimalist

Can you state the circumstances in which your statement (above) is true?

I ask because my last post (to which you replied) is about how incest = homosexuality but in the context in which your statement (quoted above) is true.

So in the face of that, it can be hard to believe in the principle that incestuous couples are more likely to produce genetically defective offspring.
— baker

Because one couple didn't? This is doing statistics wrong. — Kenosha Kid

Public opinion about a topic isn't based on statistics, but on what comes through as the most vocal.
And in the end, public opinion matters. That's why they burn witches.

The idea that the biblica sacra is to be interpreted metaphorically was at the back of my mind but that point of view does more damage to the Abrahamic triad than my accusations of incest, no? Much of the evidence for God, miracles to be precise, wouldn't amount to much if it were all symbolism. — TheMadFool

But that's because you don't have the Holy Spirit inside you and you don't understand things properly!$#632""!!!

Putting births aside, incest is extremely hardwired in most cultures (all?) as being unacceptable. If it weren't for the babies part, what makes it feel repugnant? — Manuel

Taboos tend to have to do with things that people are assumed to want to do, but which collective social wisdom says it would be better not to do it.

So from this perspective, it is a sssumed that as a given, people want to have sex with some of their close blood relatives, and that this desire must be kept in check, via a taboo.
Similarly the way small children need to be taught not to put just anything into their mouths, even though they want to.

Or, more generally, it is a sssumed that as a given, people want to have sex, and that this desire must be kept in check, via a taboo, and that people must be taught who is a suitable prospective sex partner, and who isn't. This suitability is understood in terms of biology/physiology as well as in socio-economic terms.

But that's because you don't have the Holy Spirit inside you and you don't understand things properly!$#632""!!! — baker

Likely! Very likely!

Every person takes the limits of their own field of vision for the limits of the world. — Arthur Schopenhauer

Can you state the circumstances in which your statement (above) is true? — TheMadFool

Ok, so the crazy person points a gun to your head and says you need to have sex with a stranger of the same sex or your child. You are infertile and you have all been tested for STDs and nobody has STDs. Your child is 30 years old and has expressed her desire to have sex with you long before this incident. She seems to be horny at the moment. You know that your child has had casual sex with plenty of her friends and it has never caused any drama or strain in her friendships. So, she appears to have a proven record of avoiding creating social problems out of sex. The stranger of the opposite sex also says he wants to have sex with you and he seems very horny to you. So, you don’t seem to have any reason to doubt the sincerity of his word. Under this scenario, I don’t think it morally matters who you choose to have sex with. I think it would just be a matter of your personal preferences. For example, you might feel less discomfort about having sex with one person over another. Maybe you’re the type of person that couldn’t help but have the sex impact your relationship with your daughter so you might choose the stranger just because of that. I just don’t think that incest is inherently bad in any way.

I just don’t think that incest is inherently bad in any way — TheHedoMinimalist

I have no issues with that. However, your OP is about justifying incest using homosexuality by claiming the two are equivalent and if one is permissible, there are no grounds on which to object to the other. This argument is unsound because homosexuality isn't equivalent to incest.

The best (anal)ogy I can muster is theft. A court of law doesn't make a distinction between stealing from family and stealing from strangers - to Justitia they're both theft. However, if you dig a little deeper, pilfering from family is in addition to theft a kind of betrayal. A similar line of reasoning seems applicable to homosexual incest, this then demonstrating the two (homosexuality and incest) are distinct entities.

Public opinion about a topic isn't based on statistics, but on what comes through as the most vocal. — baker

I think you've rather confused yourself there, as this is not relevant to your previous reply. The statistical likelihood of degeneration through inbreeding is obviously a statistical matter, and is not a function of popular opinion.

*sigh*
The popular perception of incest is what this thread is about.
Popular perception is not based on statistics.

*sigh*

The popular perception of incest is what this thread is about. — baker

I was responding to this:

So in the face of that, it can be hard to believe in the principle that incestuous couples are more likely to produce genetically defective offspring. — baker

This is not a statement about popular opinion. I know you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you should at least be able to follow your own contribution to a conversation.

Oh, what a spiritual person you are.

That's about as random and pointless as you're training me to expect. You're a one-person race to the bottom.

*sigh*
What a right-winger. Always blame the other person. Always place the whole responsibility for the quality of the communication on the other person. Just vote for Trump, honey.

You got from your inability to follow your own argument to me being a Trump supporter?! As I said, a one-person race to the bottom.

I have no issues with that. However, your OP is about justifying incest using homosexuality by claiming the two are equivalent and if one is permissible, there are no grounds on which to object to the other. This argument is unsound because homosexuality isn't equivalent to incest. — TheMadFool

I actually changed my mind about the truthfulness of my OP after having a conversation with darthbaracuda. I think he/she pointed out a meaningful practical difference between incest and homosexuality. Just out of curiosity, what downside do you think comes with incest that you think would tip the scales to make incest worse than homosexuality?

I actually changed my mind about the truthfulness of my OP after having a conversation with darthbaracuda. I think he/she pointed out a meaningful practical difference between incest and homosexuality. Just out of curiosity, what downside do you think comes with incest that you think would tip the scales to make incest worse than homosexuality? — TheHedoMinimalist

I can't quite put a finger on it but the closest moral transgression incest commits that makes it worse than homosexuality is betrayal!

any meaningful difference between homosexuality and incest — TheHedoMinimalist

Incest can produce a deformed baby. Therefore it is unethical. Also incest tends to contradict our natural feelings. Meaning we tend not to desire it. We have a built in mechanism to guide us against it.