The Instigator
Thefreethinker44
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kazierno
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Incest be legalized?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 96223
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Thefreethinker44

Pro

LGBT has finally been recognized, took ages to even allow the general public to accept it but eventually such was done, maybe now it is time to think about those who have suppressed feelings for their loved ones as well. Let this be a debate to stimulate everyone's minds on this one particularly "taboo" matter. Let's keep it friendly and tolerant and allow everyone who wants to participate to talk with facts and logic. Examples are always welcome. Regards
Kazierno

Con

I oppose the legalization of incest between consenting adults as it can still result in abuse and exploitation of the innocent. Incest has long been taboo in most cultures. Even between consenting adults it is inappropriate behaviour. Take the instance of a parent and child....Although the child may be 18 they are still subject to manipulation and possible exploitation by the mature and experienced parent. Legalizing incest opens the door for individuals to be abuse and emotionally crippled by those who are supposed to serve and protect them. Another point being that two people with the same genes should NOT be mating, this would bring on horrific deformities along with a child, which then would continue to corrupt the gene pool along the line.
Debate Round No. 1
Thefreethinker44

Pro

Granted, but most of what you are mentioning are about the fallouts of incest which is (if at all allowed someday) matters which can be regulated. Some of the most exhalted instruments of international law mention the right of a human to live a life with whomever he or she wants to. This is one of the basic rights of human existence. Indeed, mating and giving birth between incestous couples is also a matter that science has warned to be dangerous. The risk of deformities is more. But then again, bring in the matter of regulation, less than a couple centuries ago, (if we talk about the taboo aspect), even living together without a marriage was a sin, being homosexual was a sin and till date is frowned upon in many communities on earth (no offense to anyone) but it changed, times change a lot of the perceptions that people tend to keep. Sometimes, it is more about the societal image rather than the actual contention, that is the problem.
Kazierno

Con

Ever since we hit puberty, we join the "sexual race" where we compete in order to seem appealing and desirable. Unconsciously, EVERY SINGLE THING we do, we do for sex and reproduction (blame evolution). Having a good job, building a social circle, looking attractive, is all part of the attempt to make us seem like better partners. Our sole purpose is to continue our genetic traits.

With that being said, I think that having a free-zone, where we can pull down our feathers, is necessary for us, mentally. If incestry became legalized, and a norm, then we would have no escape from the race, and our sexual radar would be constantly turned on.
Debate Round No. 2
Thefreethinker44

Pro

Or maybe we'd just be so much more focused on the real good stuff, the actual noble stuff such as working on poverty eradication, not having wars, working on our soceity and being a useful part of it instead of cutting each other's routes over sexuality, looking better, having to degrade others because we're too insecure and weak to actually put up a competition and win fair and square, and all of that good would happen because we find love, comfort and pleasure at home and that too unconditional, rather than subject to conditions such as money, big cars, posh suits and pricey haircuts (not that you don't wanna look good for the family lover - if that does happen, but family is definitely not that demanding in material aspects cuz they love you regardless of your success rate)
Kazierno

Con

I can't see any benefit in permitting incest. The taboo exists for real reasons, beyond the supposed genetic risks of "swimming in your own gene pool". The incest taboo rightfully discourages sex between family members, because it is typically an abusive situation. So legalizing incest could make this kind of abusive situation more socially acceptable.
Debate Round No. 3
Thefreethinker44

Pro

Lots of things were discouraged for lots of reasons which don't even matter now. Times change, perspectives change and realities change. We see families intact, but child protection/child support still keeping a close eye on the slightest hint of abuse to a child by their parents and if they sniff anything fishy, they come down with all their force and make things right. Therefore incest and abuse are two different things, once again, i would resort to my argument about "regulating" things properly. If such can be done, and it is not impossible because there is a lot of regulation on many different levels of a civilized society, so in that case, incest can be managed. Talking about incest being taboo for obvious reasons, well, the taboo level never stopped a lot of the ruling elites from marrying within themselves, just to preserve their property and money, in many societies, up til not too long ago.
Kazierno

Con

I don't think two logical minded adults would even choose incest as an available option. While centuries ago incest might have been the norm especially in royal families, there is no need for it today. There are plenty of people in the world for you to love that are not in your family. Incest also corrupts genes. Two people with similar genes biological should not be mating. If they do their children are subjected to physical, mental and genetic deformities, why would you purposely consent to a union in which any resulting offspring
Debate Round No. 4
Thefreethinker44

Pro

Im just saying my friend, there are debates being conducted about legalizing incest in the Scottish parliament, Sweden, germany, people are saying and i think this is a pretty valid argument that just as once homosexuality was a taboo and the judge in england used to pass a decree against a person who was guilty of being homosexual to have gross mental disorders and the need to be treated with drugs which ended up screwing his head to the point that he wouldn't even be able to live a normal life, there is room to debate and argue about this issue rather than dismissing even talking about it just because it's too taboo. It doesn't matter what you or I think about it, what matters is to accept the existence of a situation and then address it face on. I am definitely pro-incest not for my own sake but for the sake of the logic that has so legalized a lot of other stuff. Therefore, either the logic is flawed or we as a society have double standards! Thanks for the debate, appreciate it!
Kazierno

Con

Incest carries with it a high degree of risk for sexual molestation and the exploitation of minors. Of course you can clarify it by saying the age of consent must stay intact, but removing the stigma of the practice will also widen the net of acceptability in people's minds. You will see a rise in young teens and pre-teens who say they consent to it but actually they have been emotionally manipulated, because the abuser is as close to them as anyone can be: a member of their own family.
I would also argue that particularly for members of one's immediate family (mother, father, brother, sister), there are differing psychological roles and attachments that one must learn to grow into a healthy adult. To confuse these roles with romantic and sexual interest would be damaging to one's concept of attachment when pursuing non-incestuous romantic relationships.

But thanks! That was a really interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Heirio 11 months ago
Heirio
(Damn, I forgot to add the spaces to that last one, sorry)

----Hence, his argument only works against heterosexual incestuous couples who desire to have kids, not incest in general.

To my disappointment, Pro doesn't refute these cases. He compares the legalisation of incest to the legalisation of homosexuality.

Con then responds to the fact that incest carries risk of sexual molestation and exploitation of minors. The former can be applied to all relationships, so isn't good against incest, and the latter only applies to incest wherein a minor is involved, despite the fact that many incestuous relationships are between two consenting adults. It focuses on paedophilic incest and not incest as a whole. He goes back to his point that emotional manipulation can be a factor. While this has merit, the fact is that just because a relationship -can- have it, it doesn't mean it -will-. Such emotional manipulation can occur - albeit at a lesser affect - with non-incestuous couples. It was also this point of emotional manipulation which I suspect Pro was talking about when mentioning child protection.

I was hopeful, but ended up disappointed.

Con made good points against specific situations of incest, though never made a good case against incest as a whole. Pro didn't manage to refute many of Con's points though made several good ones of his own.

Consider this a response to the debate as well as a RFD.

It is a tie.
Posted by Heirio 11 months ago
Heirio
I'm not sure where the argument lies in Pro's next paragraph (the paragraph in question is also ONE sentence, which only makes it harder to read).
Con gives the argument that there is a reason most of us go "ew" when incest comes up: the reason being that sex (and therefore from the evolutionary perspective: babies) between incestuous couples results in weaker offspring. However, this only seems to take effect if the relationships in question were for the sole purpose of babies, which it isn't. Many people have recreational sex. If an incestuous couple had protected sex, then they would only be having sex; babies wouldn't be a factor, and therefore the point Con made is irrelevant. Again, his point would be very good against incestuous couples procreating, but not incest in general.
Pro then goes to refute the argument Con made in the first round (which is a bit late). He points to child protection/child support, though I thought this was regarding incest between two consenting -adults-. But he then points out that incest and abuse are two different things, which I think is a good point.
Con then stated that two logically minded adults wouldn't choose incest. The problem with this however is that love can be irrational. If - as I assume - his argument lies upon the premise that the offspring of such a couple would be deformed, then his argument should also take a similar hold of gay couples due to the fact that they cannot naturally procreate. The fact that gay couples do feel love towards each other despite them not being able to properly procreate tells us that today love is not just about procreation and that is what makes his argument fall apart. He states that "there are many others out there", though this is also relatively weak. His argument seems to centre on incestuous couples procreating, despite the fact that just because there is a couple it doesn't mean they will have kids together. It also excludes gay incest, where procreation isn't possible.----
Posted by Heirio 11 months ago
Heirio
Con starts off with stating that the legalisation of incest opens the younger participant to manipulation by the elder participant. This point only works with parent/child relationships (the use of the word child is confusing since we're talking about one which is now of legal age) and it disregards the fact that such age differences can occur in non-incest relationships as well. However, I'd admit that a parent can have more influence than a partner who is simply old enough to be the parent. While this is a perfectly valid and sound point, it is not particularly strong as while such manipulation in an incestuous relationship -can- occur, there is no guarantee it -will-. He goes on to state that if blood relatives have a child of their own via conception, it will have birth defects. This is a very good argument against incestuous couples procreating, though it weakens when applied to incest in general.

Pro counters with the fact that - if they are both consenting adults - people should be able to be with whomever they chose and that this is a basic human right. He also admits that procreation between such couples will cause birth defects, but states that regulation (by which I assume he means contraception other precautions).

Con says that our sole purpose is to procreate, due to evolution. To put it better: the survival of the species. What I can gather from this is that when we do things to reproduce, we are almost in a "sexual race" and his argument is that if incest was legalised, we'd always be in this race. This is his weakest argument so far; I don't see how it works against incest specifically.
Posted by Heirio 11 months ago
Heirio
Sorry that my vote doesn't contribute much to the scores, but it contains my thoughts to the arguments presented as well.
Posted by Heirio 11 months ago
Heirio
Sorry, but my vote will include a sort of summary of what was said. Helps me lay it all out.
Posted by TheBenC 11 months ago
TheBenC
Is incest actually illegal? I never heard of that before.
Posted by Rhetorically_Correct 11 months ago
Rhetorically_Correct
Oh my...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Heirio 11 months ago
Heirio
Thefreethinker44KaziernoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.