Australian judge under fire for saying incest 'may be accepted'

Looks like the Hon. Garry Neilson has been watching the anime of late.

This is gross and most human beings would be repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex because it destroys the family unit. Inbreeding will compromise the gene pool and cause birth defect, developmental disorder and abnormalities. Children need to be protected from sexual exploitation by parents because they are weak and vulnerable. This would cause a life-long damaging effect on children who are exploited by those whom they are dependent. Therefore their capacity to trust others will be impaired and destroyed. In the end we need laws, customs, and taboos to preserve the trust that children require to have in their caretakers. That trust is the basis for their future relationship with others and for their confidence in order to be responsible adults and citizens.

Understatement of stupidity. Incest will involve mostly underage sexual interaction, childe molestation, statutory rape, and it doesn't just stop at brother/sister, but mother/son, father/daughter etc and the list goes on.

This is what happens when man's idea of law becomes so inclusive that "if it feels good, do it" over-rides the basic commen sense and wisdom of, "Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should"

If you lose a moral grounding point, you lose the proper guidance in making good judgment and choices in life.

But if there's no danger of conception (say the brother's had a vasectomy), then where's the harm?

Sure, the knee-jerk reaction is "vile abomination," but knee-jerk reactions are so often wrong-headed.

Don't have a sister myself, but going on the evidence of my own looks, I wouldn't fancy her much if she existed. ; )

Novenchama:

" This is gross and most human beings would be repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex because it destroys the family unit "

I am also against incest, but yours is a strange argument. In a world, where two men, to women, single parents, and for practical purposes any combination thereof are considered "families", what "family unit" are you talking about? It seems to be that door has been left open long time ago. As if there was something left to destroy.

WilliB: The family-damage argument against incest does not apply to homosexuality. In other words if a man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. The fundamental premise assumes that there is no damage to a particular family unit if a homosexual relationship exits. That argument can be made only by ignoring the impact upon a family of origin. Beyond this, it limits the family-damage argument to an individual family, when the argument must be broadly applied to the family as an institution. However the conservative view is that all sexual deviance such as incest, bestiality etc. violates the natural order and families depend on moral structure so if Dad sleeps with another man or another women or mom sleeps with grandpa, the family falls apart. Kids near clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.

Novenchama:

" Kids near clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids. "

Exactly. That is why the PC agenda of calling two men, two women, or polygamistic arrangements a "family" is so destructive. You think you are not messing up kids with stuff like "I have two daddies"? So, you are simply repeting my comment -- that horse has bolted.

As for incest, there are clear biological reasons not to approve of it. Nothing to do with particular ideologies.