@6rant6 So maybe it isn’t so much the ick factor that matters, but rather the protection of the more vulnerable person in the __generic case__. Maybe it’s appropriate to exclude such relationships on the grounds that they may often cause the weaker person disproportion harm, or harm disproportionately often. It is so much the “”ick factor”_. Incest is a big taboo in many religions. Where people get squirrely is when they try to hang the aversion to incest on some other bogus tenet; imbalance in the relationship, bullying, inequality, child bearing, etc. Where dos one start? All those reasons hold about as much water as a cup made of newspaper. How many relationships are imbalanced? If you have an elitist and a socialite coupling with a poor person, who has little influence, there can’t be manipulation or bullying there? What if one person has an IQ of 167, and couple with a person with an IQ of 88? The smart person can phrase or present things to the partner that is only 88IQ that sounds good, but in reality could be doing them no good at all. Do we jump in and micromanage that relationship? What if one person is a multimillionaire and the couple with some person with no money, they won’t ever use the money to drive the relationship their way or use it as leverage? What if one is a citizen and the other need the partner to gain citizenship, surely there will NEVER be in coercion or manipulation there.
It is the ”ick factor” pure and simple. Look at some of the comments, snatch at random ”I understand that in a good portion of the world, relationships between cousins are more or less accepted, but between siblings or parent and child, no, just no.”. Transposed one can say, “I understand that in a good portion of the world, relationships between class levels, different races are more or less accepted, but between an elitist and a commoner, Hispanic and an African American, no, just no”. What about, ”It’s disgusting that they don’t think of their future children or how it affects other people around them. I can’t even imagine siblings or parent/child, everyone knows it’s just sick and abnormal.” Transposed, ”It’s disgusting that they don’t think of their future children or how it affects other people around them. I can’t even imagine male on male, everyone knows it’s just sick and abnormal.” How about one more sample just to bring it on home, ”Well, I think that it is nasty and repulsive. I dont care if its parent child, first cousin, second cousin, or third. Anyway that you look at it i find absolutely gross! It is wrong in any kind of way.” Transposed, ”Well, I think that it is nasty and repulsive. I don’t care if its transsexual post op, transsexual no o, or just a cross-dresser. Anyway, that you look at it I find absolutely gross! It is wrong in any kind of way.”
It is not to jump on you, or jump down the throats of those who made the statements, but to bring the point home, any statement can be made of others back at you. If you are going to tackle it in a totally secular way at least be genuine with it. To use the babies to try to dispel incest is disingenuous. It would be as if I were against private gun ownership and I bring up Columbine, the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre, and that at V-Tech to prove citizens cannot be trusted with guns. I would gander if you took all the gun violence, via thugs, criminals, domestic violence, etc, it would still not come up to 25% of all gun owners. If I wanted to have people lean to thinking guns are dangerous, I can ignore all the responsible gun owners and focus on the highly visible massacres.