Incest MAY be ok

[PaulSacramento]

Faceplam time:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-a-taboo.html

A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to ****sexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.
"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.
"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."

Judge Neilson made the comments during the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister. The man has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his sister when she was 10 or 11 years old in 1973 or 1974 but has pleaded not guilty to charges relating to sex they had in 1981, when she was 18 and he was 26.
"By that stage they are both mature adults," the judge said.
"The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become 'free' when the second relationship broke down. The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we've come a long way from the 1950s – when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful."
The comments were labelled misogynistic and "completely disgraceful" by Sally Dowling, the crown prosecutor, who has asked an appeal court to appoint another judge.
"The reference to abortion is particularly repellent," she said.
Dr Cathy Kezelman, an advocate for preventing child sex abuse, said incest was horrific, regardless of the ages of those involved.
"The relational betrayal of the horrors of incest between a brother and sister of any age is abhorrently criminal," she told The Sydney Morning Herald.

[RickD]

Incest is ok because we now have abortion to fix any "mistakes".

[PaulSacramento]

Incest is ok because we now have abortion to fix any "mistakes".

Face palm indeed, BUT see there is the line of reasoning:
IF the reason incest is/was wrong was because of " it may lead to abnormalities in offspring", then you can see the justification of it being ok now that we don't have to worry about that.
That is the very slippery slope we are on when we approach right and wrong based on "subjective consequences" that at any give point may NOT be an issue anymore.

[PaulSacramento]

Incest is ok because we now have abortion to fix any "mistakes".

Face palm indeed, BUT see there is the line of reasoning:
IF the reason incest is/was wrong was because of " it may lead to abnormalities in offspring", then you can see the justification of it being ok now that we don't have to worry about that.
That is the very slippery slope we are on when we approach right and wrong based on "subjective consequences" that at any give point may NOT be an issue anymore.

Of course one can argue that the bible is ok with incest ( or was at certain points) which I do NOT agree with BUT many bible literalists MUST agree with.

[1over137]

Incest is ok because we now have abortion to fix any "mistakes".

[Jac3510]

Of course one can argue that the bible is ok with incest ( or was at certain points) which I do NOT agree with BUT many bible literalists MUST agree with.

Wuh? That's ridiculous.

And why do I get the point this is some sad attempt at a dig people who disagree with your position on evolution?

[PaulSacramento]

Of course one can argue that the bible is ok with incest ( or was at certain points) which I do NOT agree with BUT many bible literalists MUST agree with.

Wuh? That's ridiculous.

And why do I get the point this is some sad attempt at a dig people who disagree with your position on evolution?

Nope, no dig, it is a comment on those that believe that there were NO OTHER humans other than Adam and Eve and their children, which would mean that they had to commit incest to populate the planet.
Which means there was a point in time where God was "ok" with incest and I simply do not believe that to be the case BUT those that believe that there was only Adam and His family MUST believe that to be the case.
What is ridiculous about that?

[RickD]

Abraham and Sarah.

[PaulSacramento]

Abraham and Sarah.

What about them?

[RickD]

Half Brother and sister. Married. Blessed by God.

[PaulSacramento]

Half Brother and sister. Married. Blessed by God.

I was thinking more about the view that there were no humans around other than those in the Garden of Eden ( I disagree), which meant that Adam and Eves kids would have had to have sex with each other to procreate and populate the Earth.

[RickD]

Half Brother and sister. Married. Blessed by God.

I was thinking more about the view that there were no humans around other than those in the Garden of Eden ( I disagree), which meant that Adam and Eves kids would have had to have sex with each other to procreate and populate the Earth.

Paul,

This is part of what you wrote:

...Which means there was a point in time where God was "ok" with incest and I simply do not believe that to be the case BUT those that believe that there was only Adam and His family MUST believe that to be the case.

If you are saying that incest as we define it today, was also incest in the OT, then certainly Abe and Sarah committed incest. And God blessed their relationship, right?

[PaulSacramento]

Half Brother and sister. Married. Blessed by God.

I was thinking more about the view that there were no humans around other than those in the Garden of Eden ( I disagree), which meant that Adam and Eves kids would have had to have sex with each other to procreate and populate the Earth.

Paul,

This is part of what you wrote:

...Which means there was a point in time where God was "ok" with incest and I simply do not believe that to be the case BUT those that believe that there was only Adam and His family MUST believe that to be the case.

If you are saying that incest as we define it today, was also incest in the OT, then certainly Abe and Sarah committed incest. And God blessed their relationship, right?

Indeed, yes I agree.
I wonder if incest was defined differently in those days or how it related Abe and Sarah since she was his half-sister and NOT of the same mother.

[neo-x]

IMO, incest remains incest. We perhaps can say that incest was not viewed as wrong but sex between family members would just be that, incest.

It is however the same with slavery, polygamy and incest, killing of women and children in war, at various instances, the bible makes it seem God was fine with these in the O.T.

[PaulSacramento]

IMO, incest remains incest. We perhaps can say that incest was not viewed as wrong but sex between family members would just be that, incest.

It is however the same with slavery, polygamy and incest, killing of women and children in war, at various instances, the bible makes it seem God was fine with these in the O.T.

There are deeper theological issues in regards to why God permitted certain acts in the OT, but that is a different thread.
Although it may be argued that God was ok with incest based on certain ways of interpreting text and what text doesn't say, and if that is correct then it may be that God accommodated certain behavior at certain points in time that later become taboo.