• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dennis Prager (PragerU): "There's no secular argument against adult incest. (1 Viewer)

Lord Tammerlain said:
If it was truly an adult decision not one of grooming, the marriage would not likely have been allowed in the first place, in the rare case of say adoption or other situations where the couple do not know they are siblings, no I do not think the marriage should be annulled. Nor do I think it should be a crime when it was not a situation of grooming, but neither should it be encouraged
Click to expand...
We don't test genetics before someone gets married. Siblings and even parent and child can not know they have those relations out there and/or be unaware that they are dating and then marrying their sibling.

www.mccaberussell.com

Genetic Testing Reveals Married Couple Is Actually Related - McCabe Russell Divorce and Child Custody Lawyers

Do you need to file for divorce in Rockville? Call us today to schedule an appointment.
www.mccaberussell.com www.mccaberussell.com

It is rare, but does happen.

While most places do not allow such marriages if known, many also require annulment if found out, which in my view is wrong. I don't think that they should be legally banned though from having sexual relations. I would rather they receive genetic counseling though without facing legal consequences for coming out as being together than have to hide it and hope no one recognizes they are siblings having sex. There's a good chance they'd choose to simply have one of them get sterilized or take precautions if they are informed of the potential risk they face.

I don't think there is some huge incestuous communities thriving in places like Rhode Island or New Jersey simply because they have no laws regarding incest being illegal after adulthood reached. In fact, the two states where adult incest is most legal (other states will allow cousins and further out, at least some anyway) aren't on the list of states where most incest happens.

Most Inbred States in the U.S. 2025

worldpopulationreview.com worldpopulationreview.com
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
I don't believe in eugenics either

Let's look at down syndrome as you brought it up, a child with it will likely require life long care even after the parents have died, with little to no potential to be able to live a normal productive life. If they have siblings the siblings may be " forced" to care for them after parents have died.


Is that a fair decision to make by the parents, for their non disabled children and the potentially disabled child?
Click to expand...
You realize that if the answer to your question here is, "it is an unfair decision" that's arguing for eugenics...right?

The other children aren't forced to do anything. Morally they ought to take care of their sibling but nothing will happen to them if they don't.

But no I don't think it is unfair. Disabled people and people with mental illnesses can live for filling and meaningful lives. I think it would be immoral to prevent those parents from having a kid if that's what they wanted.
 
This is one of the silliest threads I've ever seen here.

Posts are falling into two camps:

1. Taking the quoted comments as somehow justifying incest. That is ridiculous and completely ignores what the man actually said. Anyone who says Prager is defending incest is either dishonest or has very low cognitive function.

2. Arguing against the contention in the OP link, i.e. arguing that Prager is wrong and that there are indeed secular arguments against incest. That's absolutely fair. As it happens, I agree, there are secular arguments.

The preponderance of posts seems to fall into category 1), sadly.
 
vanceen said:
This is one of the silliest threads I've ever seen here.

Posts are falling into two camps:

1. Taking the quoted comments as somehow justifying incest. That is ridiculous and completely ignores what the man actually said. Anyone who says Prager is defending incest is either dishonest or has very low cognitive function.

2. Arguing against the contention in the OP link, i.e. arguing that Prager is wrong and that there are indeed secular arguments against incest. That's absolutely fair. As it happens, I agree, there are secular arguments.

The preponderance of posts seems to fall into category 1), sadly.
Click to expand...
Indeed, any arguments against incest would have to be secular. They certainly don't come from the christian bible, which by default, makes incest very much a part of "god's" plan. There's simply no way to populate the planet from just Adam and Eve without it, and then repopulating it again from Noah's family, where the same applies.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
You realize that if the answer to your question here is, "it is an unfair decision" that's arguing for eugenics...right?

The other children aren't forced to do anything. Morally they ought to take care of their sibling but nothing will happen to them if they don't.

But no I don't think it is unfair. Disabled people and people with mental illnesses can live for filling and meaningful lives. I think it would be immoral to prevent those parents from having a kid if that's what they wanted.
Click to expand...

Parents being selfish is not something I respect.

While it should not be illegal, it should be discouraged against
 
roguenuke said:
We don't test genetics before someone gets married. Siblings and even parent and child can not know they have those relations out there and/or be unaware that they are dating and then marrying their sibling.

www.mccaberussell.com

Genetic Testing Reveals Married Couple Is Actually Related - McCabe Russell Divorce and Child Custody Lawyers

Do you need to file for divorce in Rockville? Call us today to schedule an appointment.
www.mccaberussell.com www.mccaberussell.com

It is rare, but does happen.

While most places do not allow such marriages if known, many also require annulment if found out, which in my view is wrong. I don't think that they should be legally banned though from having sexual relations. I would rather they receive genetic counseling though without facing legal consequences for coming out as being together than have to hide it and hope no one recognizes they are siblings having sex. There's a good chance they'd choose to simply have one of them get sterilized or take precautions if they are informed of the potential risk they face.

I don't think there is some huge incestuous communities thriving in places like Rhode Island or New Jersey simply because they have no laws regarding incest being illegal after adulthood reached. In fact, the two states where adult incest is most legal (other states will allow cousins and further out, at least some anyway) aren't on the list of states where most incest happens.

Most Inbred States in the U.S. 2025

worldpopulationreview.com worldpopulationreview.com
Click to expand...


Re last paragraph

In the US and or Canada inbreeding is more likely among religious groups like the Hutterites ( Christian religious group with colonies across the prairie regions of the US and Canada, very successful farmers ). So it is not really a significant issue within society
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Parents being selfish is not something I respect.

While it should not be illegal, it should be discouraged against
Click to expand...
I will agree that we should discourage reproducing between siblings (parent/child relations are a little different but still would fit into do not encourage if met the exceptions mark of didn't know about each other til after relationship began). But I think the best way to do that is to use genetic counseling and potentially even offer/suggest sterilization of one or both of them, either permanently or long term with renewal (by their choice).
 
vanceen said:
This is one of the silliest threads I've ever seen here.

Posts are falling into two camps:

1. Taking the quoted comments as somehow justifying incest. That is ridiculous and completely ignores what the man actually said. Anyone who says Prager is defending incest is either dishonest or has very low cognitive function.

2. Arguing against the contention in the OP link, i.e. arguing that Prager is wrong and that there are indeed secular arguments against incest. That's absolutely fair. As it happens, I agree, there are secular arguments.

The preponderance of posts seems to fall into category 1), sadly.
Click to expand...
I am taking a third way.

That this isn’t a problem worth worrying about and Prager is trying to claim the stupidest bit of moral high ground by demonizing secularism in the dumbest way possible.
 
Parent/child has power dynamic issues and that’s a solid enough moral argument to oppose it, but he’s right about siblings. The only real argument that could be made has to do with chances of birth defects or genetic problems in children, but we don’t ban unrelated people with high chances of passing on birth defects or genetic conditions from having relationships.
 
Jezcoe said:
I am taking a third way.

That this isn’t a problem worth worrying about and Prager is trying to claim the stupidest bit of moral high ground by demonizing secularism in the dumbest way possible.
Click to expand...

At the risk of being pedantic, I think that's actually option 2. You don't agree with Prager.
 
Questerr said:
Parent/child has power dynamic issues and that’s a solid enough moral argument to oppose it, but he’s right about siblings. The only real argument that could be made has to do with chances of birth defects or genetic problems in children, but we don’t ban unrelated people with high chances of passing on birth defects or genetic conditions from having relationships.
Click to expand...
Siblings could still have power dynamics and should still experience the Westermarck Effect if raised together, so it is possible that grooming was occurring but imprinted on an older sibling (whether done by them or parents or others in the family).

I don't really care if we made it legal or not (as I stated earlier, I'm not going out to fight against RI or NJ laws that allow it now, nor have I really seen any push to do so), but I can see a moral argument against those relationships as well if they met the circumstances of being raised together.
 
Questerr said:
Question: should the government base its laws on what a person views subjectively as “nasty”?
Click to expand...
News flash.
One reason that it's illegal in most jurisdictions besides genetic defects is because society deems sleeping with your sister repulsive and it will destroy family units.
That is even being debated is creepy.
 
HenryChinaski said:
News flash.
One reason that it's illegal in most jurisdictions besides genetic defects is because society deems sleeping with your sister repulsive and it will destroy family units.
That is even being debated is creepy.
Click to expand...

If society deemed gay people to be repulsive, is that sufficient reason to make being gay illegal?
 
Questerr said:
If society deemed gay people to be repulsive, is that sufficient reason to make being gay illegal?
Click to expand...
We'll put you in the camp that finds ****ing your mother or sister acceptable.
 
HenryChinaski said:
We'll put you in the camp that finds ****ing your mother or sister acceptable.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter whether or not I PERSONALLY approve of something. Subjective feelings should not be the basis of laws.

You think they should. So if a society feels gays are repulsive, is that sufficient reason to make being gay illegal?
 
HenryChinaski said:
We'll put you in the camp that finds ****ing your mother or sister acceptable.
Click to expand...
Is it okay if the person is female, a woman?

But incest also can be much more than that 1st tier group as well. And our laws can cover every expanse of this issue to some states not having any laws regarding incest (all legal as long as all adults or at least age of consent, although marriage is limited) to everything illegal to as far out as 2nd, maybe even 4th cousins and inlaws (not even sure how that one got put in place).
 
Questerr said:
It doesn’t matter whether or not I PERSONALLY approve of something. Subjective feelings should not be the basis of laws.

You think they should. So if a society feels gays are repulsive, is that sufficient reason to make being gay illegal?
Click to expand...
Comparing homosexual relationships to incest is idiotic.
Society deems incest vile for good reason.
Never thought I'd see the day where I was having a discussion with incest advocates.
I thought they only existed on 1960's 70's Hillbilly sitcoms.
 
vanceen said:
This is one of the silliest threads I've ever seen here.

Posts are falling into two camps:

1. Taking the quoted comments as somehow justifying incest. That is ridiculous and completely ignores what the man actually said. Anyone who says Prager is defending incest is either dishonest or has very low cognitive function.

2. Arguing against the contention in the OP link, i.e. arguing that Prager is wrong and that there are indeed secular arguments against incest. That's absolutely fair. As it happens, I agree, there are secular arguments.

The preponderance of posts seems to fall into category 1), sadly.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you are not being correct here. He is indirectly justifying incest for the non-religious, like some sort of philosophical ventriloquist, in claiming that non-religious people have no argument against incest other than genetic disorders. Idiotically, he disproves his own argument.

And that doesn’t touch on any argument regarding grooming, or cultural values. Further, Adam and Eve are the ultimate incest machines, as are the many Christian royal families who wed nieces to uncles etc. for centuries to keep bloodlines “pure”.
 
Absentglare said:
Sorry but you are not being correct here. He is indirectly justifying incest for the non-religious, like some sort of philosophical ventriloquist, in claiming that non-religious people have no argument against incest other than genetic disorders. Idiotically, he disproves his own argument.

And that doesn’t touch on any argument regarding grooming, or cultural values. Further, Adam and Eve are the ultimate incest machines, as are the many Christian royal families who wed nieces to uncles etc. for centuries to keep bloodlines “pure”.
Click to expand...

No. He isn't justifying incest for anyone, directly or indirectly. He is claiming that there are no purely secular arguments against incest, and that we therefore rely on religous arguments (Old Testament laws) to oppose it.

I think he's wrong about that. But most people on here aren't even engaging with that, just reacting as if he's saying incest is OK.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Comparing homosexual relationships to incest is idiotic.
Society deems incest vile for good reason.
Never thought I'd see the day where I was having a discussion with incest advocates.
I thought they only existed on 1960's 70's Hillbilly sitcoms.
Click to expand...

We are comparing things societies feel are “repulsive” with things society feel are “repulsive”.

You think a society feeling something is repulsive is sufficient reason to make it illegal.

Muslim countries in the Middle East think being gay is “vile” and “repulsive”, so you support their anti-gay laws yes? That sufficient reason for them to have those laws?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom