Debate Mansion

   

Your opinion on Incest (Page 3)

Post Reply New Post

Page 3 of 6

Page 1 Page 2
Page   of 6
Page 4 Page 6

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20232

Posted: 10 June 2009 at 7:59pm | IP Logged
I'm ambivalent to incest. I do not think anything between two consenting adults should be considered  wrong. However, I don't mind it being illegal either. It takes someone to go out of their way psychologically to change a parental or sibling relationship to an incestuous one, so I am ok with most laws.

Heck, incest can be punishable by death. But there should be one exception allowed. Luke and Leia shipping is the only exception. George Lucas should be shot dead for ruining the best ship in shipdom.

Those who deem incest to be wrong, what is your opinion in non-blood related incest? Like adopted parents or siblings.

What about unusual circumstances like Alicia Silverstone (Cher) and Paul Rudd (Josh) in Clueless. Josh is Cher's ex step brother. They are not related by blood in any way whatsoever.

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Your opinion on Incest (Page 3)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Beyond_the_Veil

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008

Posts: 11596

Posted: 11 June 2009 at 9:26am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

chal_phek_mat

Senior Member

chal_phek_mat

Joined: 07 March 2008

Posts: 958

Posted: 11 June 2009 at 10:02am | IP Logged
If you think what happens between consenting adults is their business then  Homsexuality/incest should be acceptable facts in life.
 
If you tend to apply moral clauses to things then incest and homosexuality have been taboo under centuries of morals and both should be out of bounds
 
Cant play fast and loose with morals and principles without sounding hypocriticWink
 
Science and researches can be moulded to justify either POV

Beyond_the_Veil

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008

Posts: 11596

Posted: 11 June 2009 at 10:43am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

Beyond_the_Veil

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008

Posts: 11596

Posted: 11 June 2009 at 10:46am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

Psmith

Newbie

Psmith

Joined: 25 April 2009

Posts: 13

Posted: 11 June 2009 at 1:51pm | IP Logged
all indians are my brothers and sisters

chal_phek_mat

Senior Member

chal_phek_mat

Joined: 07 March 2008

Posts: 958

Posted: 11 June 2009 at 5:41pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by PhoeniXof_Hades

Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

If you tend to apply moral clauses to things then incest and homosexuality have been taboo under centuries of morals and both should be out of bounds


Being a taboo in the past does not equate to being morally repugnant. Women, too, were not allowed to get out of their house, or do anything they wish; all their rights were suppressed by the men, and any women attempting to change these old, traditional systems were considered transgressor, and was considered a s a 'taboo' for a women to even do anything without her husband's/father's permission. Of course, just because feminism was tabooed in the past doesn't mean it is still tabooed [in this present society] (yeah, on many cultures/societies it still is, but that doesn't mean it is amoral for a women to fight for her and women rights). Keeping and torturing slaves, too, was seen as a morally righteous deed, (and hence not tabooed) but of course we know it isn't.
LOLLOLFeminism has nothing to do with this topic whatsoever, Trace back history, Women had the rights(I know hard to swallowWink), they either chose not to enforce it or were taken away by some interpretation, You had Queens ruling countries, empires, half the world even before this so-called Feminist movement. I am sorry even educated women of today's feminist generation hide behind the pillow of Husband/Father's disapproval, that is plain cowardice. 
 
But traceback any culture,you will find homosexuality and Incest was morally repugnant and a taboo,read any historical account, any of those incedents have been marked with disapproval by the society

Incest had been prevalent in many cultures, and hence not tabooed in their way of life; so will you be supporting incest, then, saying it wasn't a "taboo" in the past? If anything, incest was way less tabooed in the past, than it is now.

Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

Science and researches can be moulded to justify either POV


Not really so. Science doesn't work that way. Yes, people does deviate a scientific theory (it no longer is remaining science when they deviate it and add their own agendas to it, like the NAARTH does) to fill their needs, but that does not mean that the science is what is being moulded to fit anyones POV.
You perhaps just look at the research and go by it, perhaps you should research who paid for the scientific studies in such matters, what were their leanings and you will generally find the scientific results match their leanings
 
Again I repeat my position here for this debate
If you beleive relationships between consenting adults is their choice, then you should accept Incest and Homosexuality, If you tend to apply moral clauses to consenting adults then both Homosexuality and Incest are as unacceptable, since those are the moral standards coming through history of mankind's cultures
 
Can you state your position here?
Do you beleive what happens between two consenting adults should be governed by the rules of the society(sometimes also referred to morals or laws), currently few societies allow homosexuality and most dont allow Incest?
OR
You beleive in what happens in two(or more) consenting adults is their choice, but it is only applicable to Homosexuality
OR
Something else?
 
We cant have a debate if you agree with my stated position here, if you want to debate on nuances and semantics, sorry I dont do thatBig smile

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20232

Posted: 11 June 2009 at 8:06pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

If you think what happens between consenting adults is their business then  Homsexuality/incest should be acceptable facts in life.
 
If you tend to apply moral clauses to things then incest and homosexuality have been taboo under centuries of morals and both should be out of bounds
 
Cant play fast and loose with morals and principles without sounding hypocriticWink
 
Science and researches can be moulded to justify either POV


Now I am not trying to offer semantic arguments here. I personally stick by "two consenting adults, their private business".

The application of moral causes also depends on the moral principles a person subscribes too. Many people who hold homosexuality acceptable, and incest unacceptable define incestuous and non incestuous relationships under different moral concepts.

Family relationships are considered to be platonic and more emotion based. Romantic relationships are physical and intimacy based. The two are considered mutually exclusive. They do not, cannot and should not overlap as it is morally wrong to cause such overlap. Hence as long as a person finds romantic liaison with a non family member it is ok. However, homosexual or heterosexual relationships that are incestuous are wrong.This makes sense and is not exactly hypocritical, because it morally defines relationships into two separate groups of familial and romantic.

The problem really stems in justifying why relationships should be exclusive. We accept that friendship can blur lines between platonic and sexual - then why not other relationships.

For me it causes no harm, so their choice.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Beyond_the_Veil

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Opinion: Saif and Bebo to Live-in

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 11

Summer3 87 4039 13 November 2009 at 6:58am
By Summer3
Your opinion on abortion

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 20 21

..RamKiJanaki.. 167 7634 06 August 2009 at 7:52am
By rogna
read... wud be glad reading ur opinion Girl_2007 7 575 14 December 2008 at 6:25am
By farri.muslimah
Your opinion on SEZ angel_111 5 313 22 June 2007 at 8:57am
By chatbuster
Discussion: Your opinion on Net Romance

2 3 4 5 6 7

SolidSnake 51 3749 14 September 2006 at 1:46pm
By Sunitha.V

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.