Lawrence Krauss states incest isn't always wrong.

[Tnmusicman]

Atheist Professor Lawrence Krauss Gets HUMILIATED and Says Incest is OK - YouTube

Well, I guess Krauss isn't going to admit that incest is "objectively wrong" but I didn't think he would say that a brother/sister that really loved each other and the sex was "only one time" that he would have to "think about it" when it comes to incest being "wrong".

What say you?

 

[Steve Petersen]

And people ridicule the 'slippery slope' argument.

 

[Tnmusicman]

And people ridicule the 'slippery slope' argument.

Event A has occurred therefore event B will inevitably happen. How has pointing out Krauss' stance on incest an example of slipery slope fallacy ? I was just saying "look, this man thinks incest isn't always objectionable". Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are meaning? Btw, I had nothing to do with making or putting the title on the YouTube video.

 

[TheDag]

Well why would incest be considered wrong? Increased risk of birth defects is the normal argument. However that requires multiple generations to reach the same level of risk as a woman over 50 giving birth. Yet we don't consider it wrong for women over 50 to give birth. So that argument isn't really valid. Yes birth rates to mothers over 50 has been increasing. Of course specific amounts of cases don't matter as it is either right or wrong. So what then is the problem? Is it the yuck factor? Well if so then no marriages should be allowed because there are gay people who think yuck about straight sex and straight couples who think yuck about gay sex. So that argument isn't valid either. So why is incest wrong exactly? I do mean incest in general.

 

[Tainted Scrolls]

Incest is wrong because long ago someone read a scripture and said "no sex with your sibilings, because I don't like it" then it was programed in our head and here we are today

 

[Hetta]

Are they both adults? Sounds yucky to me, but my issue is always consent, and really, people have no business in the bedrooms of other adults.

 

[miamited]

Atheist Professor Lawrence Krauss Gets HUMILIATED and Says Incest is OK - YouTube

Well, I guess Krauss isn't going to admit that incest is "objectively wrong" but I didn't think he would say that a brother/sister that really loved each other and the sex was "only one time" that he would have to "think about it" when it comes to incest being "wrong".

What say you?

Hi tnmusician,

I say that I wouldn't trust anyone who is not a born again believer to know the truth of God. This man is defining the sexual union as nothing more than a human issue. However, for the child of God, there is a lot more to be understood about what is right and wrong in sexual unions than just the mere human understanding of it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I'll go with Ted on this one.

From a certain perspective - DNA for instance - incest might not be absolutely prohibited. However, as Paul said in 1st Corinthians 6:12, “All things are lawful for me” – but not everything is beneficial.

The Mosaic Law prohibited incest specifically. Until and unless I find valid reason to believe that prohibition has been lifted (as it seems with eating pork) I believe we should probably stick with it.

 

[Skybringr]

I'm sure one day, just like homosexuality, incest will be looked over.

It sounds crazy now, but then again, think about how not too long ago it would have seemed just as outlandish to think homosexuality would become socially acceptable.

There is no rationale saying it is wrong- the going argument is that it causes birth defects, but society has made sex extremely recreational and 'safe', and abortion extremely obtainable.

It's funny that only in this case pregnancy should be considered, where in all other cases, most notably abortion, society has no inclination to preaching that one should just avoid having sex in the first place.


The only way a person can support incest being wrong is really to go to God's ordinances of family.
Incest, homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals- none of these things really reflect off of secular morality. It's interesting that only one is acceptable even though there is no logical premise dictating only that one should be legal.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Skybringr, if you are speaking from a cultural or societal viewpoint only, I think you are likely correct.

I heard an attorney once claim that lying is protected speech under the First Amendment. By that argument, the only lies that are really lies are those which fall under the legal definition of perjury. Much of 'right and wrong' has been redefined, misdefined or ignored already.

Getting a marriage license and a 'minister' (of some sort) to marry a cocker spaniel or a mountain goat? In time...

 

[TheDag]

I'm sure one day, just like homosexuality, incest will be looked over.

It sounds crazy now, but then again, think about how not too long ago it would have seemed just as outlandish to think homosexuality would become socially acceptable.

There is no rationale saying it is wrong- the going argument is that it causes birth defects, but society has made sex extremely recreational and 'safe', and abortion extremely obtainable.

It's funny that only in this case pregnancy should be considered, where in all other cases, most notably abortion, society has no inclination to preaching that one should just avoid having sex in the first place.


The only way a person can support incest being wrong is really to go to God's ordinances of family.
Incest, homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals- none of these things really reflect off of secular morality. It's interesting that only one is acceptable even though there is no logical premise dictating only that one should be legal.

Is this last comment made out of ignorance or is it deliberately misleading? The arguments used very much logically rule out one of those things.

 

[notalone32]

if God says it is wrong, then it is wrong. innocent children can potentially suffer birth defects due to it

 

[TheDag]

if God says it is wrong, then it is wrong. innocent children can potentially suffer birth defects due to it

you have a far higher chance of suffering birth defects if parents are over 50 when a child is born than you do from incest.

 

[brocke]

Krauss just looks at the possibility that if two siblings are in love, and he emphasizes, that they use contraception to avoid pregnancy - as there are almost always serious birth defects - that in his mind it might be okay. However he fails to look at the psychological aspects of incest. Incest almost always involves a form of abuse or at least one sibling exerting power over another. Usually when incest displays itself there is some kind of abuse going on. It can be debated that in sibling relationships there can be a mutual love. However most research has demonstrated that the love in this type of relationship is usually warped and the abused has accepted the treatment as being normal.

One thing is for sure in almost every society, except in cases with royalty, incest has been deplored.

 

[TheDag]

Krauss just looks at the possibility that if two siblings are in love, and he emphasizes, that they use contraception to avoid pregnancy - as there are almost always serious birth defects - that in his mind it might be okay.

except there is a higher risk of birth defects if parents are over 50 than from incest. We don't seem to care about those.

 

[brocke]

except there is a higher risk of birth defects if parents are over 50 than from incest. We don't seem to care about those.

Most couples over 50 are not having babies or trying to have babies. Also, because of modern medical procedures such as vasectomies, hysterectomies, and menopause pregnancy is not an issue. I don't believe that because an older couple may risk having a baby is equivalent to an incestuous relationship with the risk of a pregnancy. As I stated earlier in the thread there is also a factor of abuse that needs to be taken into account and Krauss does not take this into account.

 

[TheDag]

Most couples over 50 are not having babies or trying to have babies. Also, because of modern medical procedures such as vasectomies, hysterectomies, and menopause pregnancy is not an issue. I don't believe that because an older couple may risk having a baby is equivalent to an incestuous relationship with the risk of a pregnancy. As I stated earlier in the thread there is also a factor of abuse that needs to be taken into account and Krauss does not take this into account.

There are not that many couples wanting an incestuous relationship so therefore we shouldn't worry about it either. Surely the number of people involved does not determine the morality of something. There is an increase in parents being over 50. Sure they are small in number but they are increasing so why not deal with it now instead risking it getting out of hand. So if there is no abuse then you would be ok with that? Just so you know to get to the same level of risk as parent being over 50 there needs to be multiple generations so that reduces the risk even further. Medical procedures could prevent pregnancies so that should not be a consideration at all. Just suggesting a bit more thought would be good.

 

[brocke]

There are not that many couples wanting an incestuous relationship so therefore we shouldn't worry about it either. Surely the number of people involved does not determine the morality of something. There is an increase in parents being over 50. Sure they are small in number but they are increasing so why not deal with it now instead risking it getting out of hand. So if there is no abuse then you would be ok with that? Just so you know to get to the same level of risk as parent being over 50 there needs to be multiple generations so that reduces the risk even further. Medical procedures could prevent pregnancies so that should not be a consideration at all. Just suggesting a bit more thought would be good.

Fine with more thought about pregnancies of 50 years old and older people. However we are debating incestuous relationships here. To say deal with pregnancies of 50 year old and older couples really is a straw man argument. The dynamics in the two relationships are different is what I am stating. There is a psychological abusive aspect within incest that Krauss has ignored. All I am saying is I think this aspect needs to be considered if we are going to change the societal morals about incest. Yes also as a Christian I have reservations of changing these morals for both scientific and scriptural reasons.

 

[ewq1938]

except there is a higher risk of birth defects if parents are over 50 than from incest. We don't seem to care about those.

That's not related to incest though and nothing magically becomes true just because you claim something is true.

Incest is simply morally wrong as well as dangerous to the seedline. No daughter (or son) should be having sexual relations with her Father, Mother or siblings.

 

[Wgw]

Are they both adults? Sounds yucky to me, but my issue is always consent, and really, people have no business in the bedrooms of other adults.

Sacred scripture says otherwise.