1) English isn't my native language but I think was pretty clear. "You can't have children with that one man\woman (but free to have with billions of others) " and "You can't have children at all" are very different limitations
English isn't my first language as well.
I indeed skipped a part of your sentence.
But still: Having a relationship doesn't mean you must have children.
And there is no difference in if you disallow procreation with one person or all.
There are a bunch of incompatible couples out there with a high chance of disabled children. So in your opinion, they should be tested and if they are not compatible, it should be forbidden for them to have children.
You are simply not treating them the same way. (This violates Human Rights)
2) You have cherrypicked a minor part of financial dependency and ignored the major part of upbringing programming obedience to the parent. This is not an honest way to have a discussion.
I also mentioned emotional dominance. This can be done with any person who is vulnerable.
3) You seem to live in a magical world where we have some kind of a magical device that can determine consent or lack of it. We don't have it. So, we should avoid creating situations that look like consensual but may be very well not be one. Because Incest has a tendency to be non-consensual we should ban it. The cost of doing so is minimal.
So in your world where you can't see any hints, perpetrators of abusive relationships don't get charged because you can't see the abuse.
You can identify abusive incestuous relationships the same way as you can identify abusive non-incestuous relationships.
4) You see, when two persons have sexual relationships and have a painful break-up, it means that two random people will avoid each other. If the same happens between siblings, that means they have lost not some random person but a sibling while also hurting parents and other relatives. If you can't see how this is bad, you should work on your emotional awareness.
Do you actually know how a relationship would develop if the two persons have to live together after the breakup? I mean, it is not unheard that there are people who can be friends again after a breakup, even if they don't live together. This is even more common with younger people as they might not want to crash their social environment (clique)
I wouldn't but preventing incest is beneficial for society because it reduces the number of de-facto rapes and other unhealthy relationships
You say, it would reduce the numbers but it just hides the crime.
So yes, the numbers in the official statistics might be lower but the actual number of victims is equal or even higher.
In my country, Ukraine, incest between adults is perfectly legal. Those who openly practice will be considered perverts but there is no law that bans it in any way. The only limitation is that close relatives can't have a legal marriage but living together and having kids is fine. I'd very much prefer parent-child relationships being strictly illegal especially because our age of consent is 16.
To be an adult you must have reached the age of majority, not the age of consent. In most countries, this is 18.
Besides, a lot of countries restrict the legality of relationships between minors who already are of the age of consent and adults and define a maximal age difference.
@gene.sis
Consider this. Let's imagine there is a religious cult that believes that daughters must marry their fathers as soon as they reach 18 (or that their first child must be from their father). Will it be consensual by the legal definition of that word? Sure!
If you MUST marry someone, the decision to marry isn't consensual at all. (This would violate Human Rights)
@gene.sisBut in fact, girls will be indoctrinated into that belief and this will be anything but true consent.
If you consider a religious cult where everyone who turns 18 has to marry a member who is at least 40, you have the very same situation. They will be indoctrinated into the same belief and it isn't consensual at all.
What evidence do you have to suggest that the legalisation of homosexuality occured despite societal standards? In any case, it's a bad comparison with incest; homosexual relationships lack a tendency to be problematic, which is the primary issue with incestual relationships.
From my own experience, I can tell that there is still a big share of people who dislike the existence of gay people. They just don't voice it publicly anymore.
Yep, perfect examples of places where incest is considered ethically acceptable. That's their choice, and at 10% of all countries, it's not a popular one at all. Additionally, you will find that does not make incest common nor is it significantly less taboo, which counters your above point.
That's places there incest is not prohibited by the law.
And I never said that incest should be made more common. It is also unlikely that it becomes common as most siblings can't stand each other even without having a relationship.
I only say that the persons who are in the situation shouldn't be criminalized for their feelings.
There is the issue. That definition of wrong is not an empirical, universal one; it is one you have personally devised for yourself.
So what is the empirical, universal definition of wrong?
You cannot see harm in the issue, but everyone else can.
I can even see harm in criminalizing people and in making them live in fear, but you can't.
It is not. It is based on the arguments presented in this thread (among other things).
There is research that the prohibition of incest has been issued by the church and that the process changed western society. (Though not necessarily to the worse.)
