Why is incest wrong?

[Zoopdedoopdeboo]

The idea disgusts me, but I don’t understand fully why it is wrong.

 

[1ke]

In the first degree of the direct line-- between parents/children-- it is a mater of the divine moral law. The bonds between parents and children-- as demonstrated by the relation of Trinity as Father, Son, Holy Spirit-- are unique. Parent/child relationships must remain chaste to remain properly ordered.

In other degrees of the direct and collateral lines (siblings, cousins, etc) it is not a precept of the divine moral law, but of ecclesial law-- meaning that this is not wrong in all times and all places and is matter of Church Law (or possibly Civil Law) only-- and in many cases can be dispensed. The current degrees of consanguinity are in place because the prevailing cultural significance of the bonds of family relations and also because of genetic anomalies that can be inherited from close lines of relation.

 

[dcharlesworth]

Is there a good way to explain how the earth came to be populated by only a single couple, without brothers and sisters having inscestuous relationships? What I mean is Adam and Eve had sons, it doesn’t mention daughters but we can infer they did have them. Then they had they had grandchildren. It raises a question of gene pool, however I don’t think we could say it is outside of God’s ability to vary the human race from only 2 people.

Thanks.

 

[1ke]

Is there a good way to explain how the earth came to be populated by only a single couple, without brothers and sisters having inscestuous relationships?

Of course Adam and Eve’s offspring intermarried. The divine precept is only the first degree of the direct line-- parent/child. The other degrees, such as siblings, is not a divine prohibition.

It raises a question of gene pool, however I don’t think we could say it is outside of God’s ability to vary the human race from only 2 people.

In the beginning, the gene pool was not defective. The first parents, created perfect, and their offspring did not have inherited gene anomolies.

Sin, and the death and disease it brought, over time did corrupt us bodily and render the gene pool as it is now.

 

[dcharlesworth]

Thanks a bunch.

 

[Clonereject1138]

The idea disgusts me, but I don’t understand fully why it is wrong.

It’s wrong because the genes are too similar and you get deformities or something like that. Just like God kept us from eating pigs till we knew how to cook them so we wouldn’t get nasty diseases, or eating beef and milk 'cause it would be difficult to digest.

 

[ltbpoe43]

Children are a gift from God to be loved parentally (not sexually) so as to nurture their good character and proper formation to adulthood. This parental love is a basic building block of families so that children can gain the necessary knowledge of how to live out good lives with other mates of their choosing. To disorder and/or distort this parental love hinders the proper formation to adulthood and hinders the procreative nature of selection. It also changes and confuses the very nature of the parental relationship from one of guidance and nurturing to one of coersion and control.

 

[Sixtus]

Zoopdedoopdeboo

Why is incest wrong?
The idea disgusts me, but I don’t understand fully why it is wrong.

First may I say ‘Hello and Welcome Zoopdedoopdeboo’.

Incest is not universally regarded as an abberation.

It is wrong according to our culture and code of morality. There are sound reasons for this, that interbreeding often result in congenital abnormalities of mental and physical disability. That in my view is reason enough for a society to forbid it.

Incest reflects a serious lack of control over sexual urges. Once one consents to this degree of abberation, then the soul suffers serious spiritual damage and it is very difficult if not impossible to resist all other abberations leading to loss for the individual and degeneration for the society in which it takes place.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

In the first degree of the direct line-- between parents/children-- it is a mater of the divine moral law. The bonds between parents and children-- as demonstrated by the relation of Trinity as Father, Son, Holy Spirit-- are unique. Parent/child relationships must remain chaste to remain properly ordered.

In other degrees of the direct and collateral lines (siblings, cousins, etc) it is not a precept of the divine moral law, but of ecclesial law-- meaning that this is not wrong in all times and all places and is matter of Church Law (or possibly Civil Law) only-- and in many cases can be dispensed. The current degrees of consanguinity are in place because the prevailing cultural significance of the bonds of family relations and also because of genetic anomalies that can be inherited from close lines of relation.

Of course Adam and Eve’s offspring intermarried. The divine precept is only the first degree of the direct line-- parent/child. The other degrees, such as siblings, is not a divine prohibition.

In the beginning, the gene pool was not defective. The first parents, created perfect, and their offspring did not have inherited gene anomolies.

Sin, and the death and disease it brought, over time did corrupt us bodily and render the gene pool as it is now.

I should memorize these answers for future reference. But to be prepared for more in depth questions is there a source the fleshes out the above?

 

[whatevergirl]

The idea disgusts me, but I don’t understand fully why it is wrong.

for the very reasons it disgusts you, are the reasons it’s wrong. I think that when a person can not consent to something, that makes it wrong. Anything forced upon someone–sex in this case–is wrong. It’s wrong to force one’s self on an adult, sexually…let alone a child.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

As a previous poster pointed out that incest accents the flawed genes and invariably results is deformity. Deformity is not always detectable through the naked eye but it can be something within.

I personally have seen a local activity bus that brought deformed youngsters in wheelchairs for therapy in a controlled atmoshere. Their mangled limbs and deformed heads are enough to burn into your memory for the rest of your life.

As for Adam and Eve, I do not contradict the Bible that they were THE FIRST MAN AND WOMAN created by God. But, is it possible the Creator made other men and women after our first parents? If this sounds contradictory to Bible belief I would appreciate it being pointed out to me. I do wrestle with that thought every once in a great while.

 

[lizaanne]

Wow - I thought this said “why is incense wrong”! Been staring at the computer for waaaaay too long today!!!

~Liza

 

[Sixtus]

I stuggle with the Genisis account that God created first Adam and then Eve, when biologically and endocrinologically, it appears that man comes from woman and not the other way around.

The story may be a metaphor: ‘When God created Adam and Eve metaphorically speaking…!’ It is plausible that Adam and Eve are metaphors for the first Community of Humanity created by God who collectively were disobedient, introducing sin to the world.

It may also be the case that ‘man’ evolved from another specie, there by definition being a ‘first-one’ in a whole line of others. The first ones both male and female with the higher intelligence [knowing right from wrong as opposed to that which went before operating purely on instinct and therefore not culpable] sinned and so did all the others thereby introducing sin into the world.

It could even be that what happened in the beginning is beyond human comprehension, expressed in the way it is to give plausible meaning to something too profound for human understanding.

 

[RobDH]

for the very reasons it disgusts you, are the reasons it’s wrong. I think that when a person can not consent to something, that makes it wrong. Anything forced upon someone–sex in this case–is wrong. It’s wrong to force one’s self on an adult, sexually…let alone a child.

Incest is not always a forced or criminal act. Nor does it necessarily involve a child.

Definitions of incest:

1. 
   *]Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.
   *]The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative.
   
   And as has been stated by others, incest is not always forbidden by Church (Canon) Law.
   
   For example:
   Two people may marry, by dispensation of Canon Law, if they are 1st cousins (one set of parents are siblings) and the union does not violate civil law. This can be and is consider incest in some jurisdictions.

 

[Sixtus]

Rob DH posted:

Incest is not always a forced or criminal act. Nor does it necessarily involve a child.

I have to agree with Rob. Moral aprobations against incest are also a culturally specific.

Sociologists such the distinguished Margaret Mead, have observed that different cultures put different interprations on sexual relations. In some cultures such as New Guinea for example, it is not only acceptable but normal for a father to have sex with his daughters. But it is wrong for a mother to have sex with her son.

There are other cultural variations which differ significantly to our culture so that it is not possible to assume that a universal law applies because it does not.

We therefore cannot say ‘incest is wrong’, we can only say that ‘according to the rules of our particular culture it is wrong!’

In exactly the same way, Catholic law forbids intermarriage and therefore sexual relations with family within third cousins. English law permits marriage and sexual relations within second cousins.

Therefore what is incest by Catholic standards, is not by English Law. Put another way, Catholic law forbids as Incest what English law permits.

As both Catholic and Englishman, I accept the supremacy of Catholic law.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Children are a gift from God to be loved parentally (not sexually) so as to nurture their good character and proper formation to adulthood. This parental love is a basic building block of families so that children can gain the necessary knowledge of how to live out good lives with other mates of their choosing. To disorder and/or distort this parental love hinders the proper formation to adulthood and hinders the procreative nature of selection. It also changes and confuses the very nature of the parental relationship from one of guidance and nurturing to one of coersion and control.

This answer struck very close to home for me. My wife was sexually abused by her biological father. It had terrible effects on her childhood development and therefore on her as an adult.

Another poster mentioned that not all incest is parental/child and that is true. But I’ll wager most of you do not realize how much of it actually is.

Unfortunately, 1 out of 3 girls and 1 out of 6 boys (probably under reported) are sexually abused. Most of these in the home. While not all are technically “incest” way to many are.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Households that contain no fathers but do have more than one biological father are sister/brother; half sister/half brother groups that become sexually precocious at an early age. Many 12-13-year old girls get pregnant in meeting at school from young boys, unbeknowst to them that it is a half brother. This is rampant in some places. The deformities and other birth defects are caused by incest.

There is no records of blood kindred in one-parent homes. Biological fathers are “unknown.” This creates a generation of young with no identity. And it goes on and on and on.

 

[mapleoak]

It’s wrong because the genes are too similar and you get deformities or something like that. Just like God kept us from eating pigs till we knew how to cook them so we wouldn’t get nasty diseases, or eating beef and milk 'cause it would be difficult to digest.

This is entirely incorrect. Incest, or what would be termed inbreeding in the animal world does not cause deformities. In fact, not even intensive line-breeding will cause deformities. Neither inbreeding nor linebreeding (or incest) causes genetic mutations. It certainly can, however, amplify any predisposition to genetic deviation where that susceptibility already exists. In the same way, it can suppress that susceptibility through the weeding out of such deviation. It is more accurate to say that inbreeding is a cause of marked phenotypical display. Animals that have been heavily linebred are generally very similar in characteristic and genetic makeup to other relatives in a given gene pool.
Whether incest is wrong must depend on other reasons as have been mentioned. Among these, the family architecture as instituted and ordained by God is violated by such actions.

 

[mapleoak]

As a previous poster pointed out that incest accents the flawed genes and invariably results is deformity. Deformity is not always detectable through the naked eye but it can be something within.

Inbreeding favors neither flawed nor wholesome genes.

I personally have seen a local activity bus that brought deformed youngsters in wheelchairs for therapy in a controlled atmoshere. Their mangled limbs and deformed heads are enough to burn into your memory for the rest of your life.

These were all children resulting from incestuous relations?

As for Adam and Eve, I do not contradict the Bible that they were THE FIRST MAN AND WOMAN created by God. But, is it possible the Creator made other men and women after our first parents? If this sounds contradictory to Bible belief I would appreciate it being pointed out to me. I do wrestle with that thought every once in a great while.

Interesting question, and could possibly be the subject of another thread. It is correct that Adam and Eve were the FIRST man and women created by God. However, every human being since that time was also created by God. The difference, man also played a part in that role, hence the term ‘procreate’. Therefore, no God did not create other human beings apart from the procreation process.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

This is entirely incorrect. Incest, or what would be termed inbreeding in the animal world does not cause deformities. In fact, not even intensive line-breeding will cause deformities. Neither inbreeding nor linebreeding (or incest) causes genetic mutations. It certainly can, however, amplify any predisposition to genetic deviation where that susceptibility already exists. In the same way, it can suppress that susceptibility through the weeding out of such deviation. It is more accurate to say that inbreeding is a cause of marked phenotypical display. Animals that have been heavily linebred are generally very similar in characteristic and genetic makeup to other relatives in a given gene pool.
Whether incest is wrong must depend on other reasons as have been mentioned. Among these, the family architecture as instituted and ordained by God is violated by such actions.

Hip displasure for one.