There is nothing wrong with incest between consenting adults.
Debate Rounds (4)
I would also like to take some time to define what incest is. Incest is sexual activity between family members and close relatives. In this debate we are talking about incest between consenting adults and I in no way condone rape or paedophilia.
I feel the burden of proof is on con to explain what it is, exactly, that is immoral or unethical about incest.
I look forward to a good debate.
Personally, I do not feel it's right for a brother and a sister to have sex! Do you think that healthy too? If a brother and sister, who are biologically related, (Same genes) have sex and then give birth to a child, there is a high chance that the baby might have a birth defect. How could a brother and sister want that? But go ahead, have sex with your brother or sister and then permanently damage your child.
Sex is not wrong. Sex with some one who just about has the same genes is simply wrong.
It's almost like a mother having sex with her son and then giving birth to a child.
I completely agree that it would be wrong for a child to come from said incestuous relationship, but in todays modern age of easy-to-access contraceptives and abortions it is more than possible for two consenting family members to have a very fulfilling sex life without producing a child. Furthermore, if the only issue you have with incestuous relationships is the possibility of a genetically-deformed child, then does that mean you are okay with homosexual incestuous couples? Or relationships where one, or both, of the parties are infertile? Do you agree it's okay for post-menopausal women to be in such relationships? What about men who have had a vasectomy? What about couples who, though intimate, don't actually have intercourse in the traditional sense?
So, your argument falls flat. Many couples would have no possibility of producing children and the ones that do can, and should, prevent this by using contraceptives and, if necessary, terminating a pregnancy.
You repetitively stated, in you're argument, that incest is "just wrong," yet you don't seem to be able to justify why it's wrong. Incest is a victimless crime, and you want to know the great thing about victimless crimes? If there's no victim, then there's no crime.
IN what way did I mention "homosexual 'incestuous' couples"? I just really love how when I have a debate with someone, they come up with something I never even mentioned or said. Don't do that.
And yes, incest is just wrong. How ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SAY THAT?
It's wrong because it isn't moral. To me, that is. Why would a son want to fall in love with his mother? Or father? I'm not saying heterosexuality nor homosexuality is wrong, I am saying that it is not a "normal" thing. You wouldn't go around saying, "Oh hey Jim! Check out my new girlfriend! She's my mother as well. She's due in 3 months" That's really normal. Isn't it illegal?
But I really am Not the one to judge. If the man/woman wants to have a sexual relationship with their loved ones, that is their personal business.
But if they want to tell people about it, it is not really something accepted in society.
All in all, this is really hard to say if it is wrong or not. I really cannot say, I guess.
And you are very wordy too.
NOW your turn to debate.
If the only moral issue you have with incest is the possibility of the couple producing a child, then do you concede that incest is okay between homosexual family-members, where it is absolutely impossible to produce a child? I then extended this argument to many other couples who can't reproduce i.e. infertile couples, post-menopause women, men who have had a vasectomy and couples who, though sexual, don't actually have intercourse.
And, as I said in my last round, even if you are talking about incest between fertile couples, the ease with which people can now access contraceptives makes it entirely possible to avoid pregnancy.
So, when you said "would u want to say this is my mum and she's also three months along," you are arguing with a straw-man. I have not defended people who produce children from these relationships, my argument is that they can have these relationships without producing children.
You're other argument is "It's JUST wrong." Why is it "just wrong"? You can't just say, it's wrong because it's wrong. To deem something wrong you have to establish who it's hurting, otherwise it cannot be called immoral.
I'm glad to here you show your support for gay couples but can't you hear the similarities between your arguments and those of the homophobes "It's just wrong," "It's just the way it is."
You're right that it's illegal, but the illegality of something doesn't necessarily negate the morality of something. Many things are illegal which shouldn't be; marijuana, gay marriage, hard-core porn. There's a long list and I'm sure you can think of more way our rights are infringed by governments creating laws against things which aren't immoral and are a personal choice.
You can't use it's illegal as an argument as to why it's immoral. It's immoral should be the argument for why it's illegal, not the other way around.
So, to conclude this round, my argument stays the same. It does not hurt anyone and, in the words of Cory Taylor, "Sin is only sin if it's hurting someone."
I do not know how else to say it. You are beating around the bush! I support gay marriage. Okay? But I don't support if a family member of ANY gender who has sex with their family member. It's sick, bud. That means it's wrong if a son has sex with his mother and it's wrong if a daughter has sex with her mother. OKAY?!? I have no problem if people of the same sex have sex, nor do I with opposite sex, just not with family members.
There, does that help you understand it?
flum88 forfeited this round.
CoolPeppers12 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by aburk903 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to present any evidence that incest was wrong other than his assertion that "it just is, how else can I word it". Pro dismissed Con's contention of increased risk of birth defect by introducing a homosexual incest alternative, which according to Con was still wrong. Ultimately, between Con's lack of compelling argument and semi-unprofessional outbursts, the points go to Pro. Con, if you don't like "wordy" rebuttals, do not accept debates with larger word allowances.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.