Incest.

[Zoiek]

What are your views on incest (specifically, sexual intercourse between two people who are closely related)?

Personally, I think it should be completely legalised - I think it's very restrictive and socially backwards to outlaw it. If two people love one another, they should definitely have the full right to be together just like everyone else does. However, I think restrictions would have to be put on the people who partake in such incest regarding procreation because it can cause the babies to come out somehow malformed. Which I think it unfortunate, but then again, adoption and artificial insemination could definitely be made legal for such couples too. And in addition, the risk of babies with defects is cut out completely when it comes to homosexual/lesbian incest - so I see it as a very strange thing law to have outlawed.

[Trumpetplyer23]

Not to offend you, but I believe incest is wrong.

Why? Well, if a guy were to have sex with his sister gets her pregnant, there is an extremely high chance that the baby will have some form of a physical or mental defect because the genes are so closely related. The DNA that gets copied will have more defects because if someone is missing a gene, and they have sex with their sibling and they are also missing the gene, the child that will be born will have a severe problem because of said missing gene.

It's wrong because of that. Two people are producing a child that as severe mental/emotional/physical problems, which causes that child to suffer. It's not fair, that kid hasn't even had a chance to live life to the fullest, because his/her parents are really brother and sister or cousins.

Normally, I support love, but in the case of inscest, I don't. I know I might sound like a hypocrite, but if a faulty gene keeps getting passed around, then so many people in this world are going to have defects and problems that it won't even be funny.

Plus...The thought (for me, dunno about anyone else) of hooking up with a family member just grosses me out, because..well, we're closely related.

[Dazed]

im normally open minded but you cant really be serious?

[Zoiek]

Originally Posted by Trumpetplyer23

Not to offend you, but I believe incest is wrong.

Why? Well, if a guy were to have sex with his sister gets her pregnant, there is an extremely high chance that the baby will have some form of a physical or mental defect because the genes are so closely related. The DNA that gets copied will have more defects because if someone is missing a gene, and they have sex with their sibling and they are also missing the gene, the child that will be born will have a severe problem because of said missing gene.

It's wrong because of that. Two people are producing a child that as severe mental/emotional/physical problems, which causes that child to suffer. It's not fair, that kid hasn't even had a chance to live life to the fullest, because his/her parents are really brother and sister or cousins.

Normally, I support love, but in the case of inscest, I don't. I know I might sound like a hypocrite, but if a faulty gene keeps getting passed around, then so many people in this world are going to have defects and problems that it won't even be funny.

Plus...The thought (for me, dunno about anyone else) of hooking up with a family member just grosses me out, because..well, we're closely related.

It doesn't offend me for people to disagree, so don't worry about that I suppose...

Anyway, I added a bit in presumably after you started posting so make sure to read that for my arguments regarding procreation in such couples. Also, if you want to get rid of the "missing gene" problem - do you support Social Darwinism (i.e. survival of the fittest)? For instance, should people with Down's Syndrome be killed off to get their genes out of the gene pool forever?

I have an issue with your last point. Why should something be illegal just because it makes you feel uneasy? Some people find homosexual relations absolutely repulsive, but they aren't illegal. I'm sure you'd feel rather angered if someone outlawed your right to be with the one you love because they find it disgusting.

[Zoiek]

Originally Posted by iluxsincerelyxme

im normally open minded but you cant really be serious?

Why not? What's wrong with two people who love one another (or just want to have sex) being together?

[Trumpetplyer23]

Originally Posted by Zoiek

It doesn't offend me for people to disagree, so don't worry about that I suppose...

Anyway, I added a bit in presumably after you started posting so make sure to read that for my arguments regarding procreation in such couples.

I have an issue with your last point. Why should something be illegal just because it makes you feel uneasy? Some people find homosexual relations absolutely repulsive, but they aren't illegal. I'm sure you'd feel rather angered if someone outlawed your right to be with the one you love because they find it disgusting.

I'm not saying that's a reason for it to be outlawed. My reason is the entire defect thing I had talked about before.

I was merely stating my opinion on incest. I don't think it should be outlawed because it grosses me out, but, I do have the right to my opinion. I respect your opinion that it shouldn't be outlawed.

Plus, this thread is about my views on it, right? My reasoning for making it illegal is the entire birth defect thing. My personal opinion is that it's gross. There is a difference.

[Jeimuzu]

I don't even want to think about it, but on principle, I do actually agree with you, Zoiek. It's a fair point, even if I really don't want to consider the reality of it.

[Zoiek]

Originally Posted by Trumpetplyer23

I'm not saying that's a reason for it to be outlawed. My reason is the entire defect thing I had talked about before.

I was merely stating my opinion on incest. I don't think it should be outlawed because it grosses me out, but, I do have the right to my opinion. I respect your opinion that it shouldn't be outlawed.

Plus, this thread is about my views on it, right? My reasoning for making it illegal is the entire birth defect thing. My personal opinion is that it's gross. There is a difference.

Also, if you want to get rid of the "missing gene" problem - do you support Social Darwinism (i.e. survival of the fittest)? For instance, should people with Down's Syndrome be killed off to get their genes out of the gene pool forever?

[Ronnie92]

I'm sorry, I have to go with Trumpet on this one. Incest just has to many ramification, to many things could go wrong. While love should be permitted, which I believe you are trying to make a point of, incest has been outlawed for a reason

I'm with Zoiek here.

I did a project on human inbreeding not too long ago and the major risk of close relations having children is the child is more likely to have a recessive disease. But for the most part, people are not attracted to their fathers/mothers/siblings. That is because of some child psychology thing where if you knew a person before the age of six (lived with them and saw them on a regular basis), you are not supposed to sexualize them in your mind. I tend to think that sibling relationships may have to do with a mental trauma, but I'm not a doctor so it's not my place to say no to those who want to be together.

Also, in many other cultures, cousin-cousin coupling and uncle-niece couplings are very popular. It is just a societal tabboo here.

I'm going to include some genetics research projects/books/articles to this post so you can read about the effects of inbreeding (It is NOT the end of the world, honestly):

1. Centre for Human Genetics, Genetic epidemiology in consanguineous populations, http://www.chg.ecu.edu.au/research/consanguinity.php , 29.01/2008, Edith Cowan University, 2002.

2. Consanguinity, Inbreeding and Genetic Drift in Italy, Cavalli-Sforza, Moroni, and Zei, Simon A. Levin and Henry S. Horn, Princeton University Press, 41 William Street Princeton New Jersey 08540, 2004.


3. Human Biology, Inbreeding In Gredos Mountain Range (Spain): Contribution of Multiple Consanguinity and Intervalley Variation, http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/human_biolo...3.2fuster.html , 29 /09/2000, 29.01/2008, The Wayne State University Press, 2001.

4. Incest: A Biosocial View, Joseph Shepher, E. A. Hammel, Academic Press, Inc. 111 Fifth Avenue, New York 10003, 1983.


5. Inbreeding and the Genetic Complexity of Human Hypertension, Igor Rudan, Nina Smolej-Narancic, Harry Campbell, Andrew Carothers, Alan Wright, Branka Janicijevic and Pavao Rudan, 19/11/2002, Genetics Society of America, http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/163/3/1011.pdf, 2003.

6. Inbreeding Effects on Fertility in Humans: Evidence for Reproductive Compensation, Carole Ober,Terry Hyslop, and Walter W. Hauck, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 64:225–231, 1999


7. Jocasta’s Crime, Lord Raglan, Horward Fertig, Inc. 80 East 11th Street, New York, N.Y. 10003, 1991.


Saying that the world will be populated by incestuest marriages and all the children will be deformed is nonsense. It's like saying that gay marriage will cause everyone to suddenly realize they are gay.

[Zoiek]

Originally Posted by Ronnie92

I'm sorry, I have to go with Trumpet on this one. Incest just has to many ramification, to many things could go wrong. While love should be permitted, incest has been outlawed for a purpose.

But if the two people use contraception, and in the very worst case scenario, abortion - there is little chance of creating children who will have birth defects.

Also, no one has addressed my point of homosexual couples not making children from sex?

[Zoiek]

Originally Posted by Numfarh

Also, in many other cultures, cousin-cousin coupling and uncle-niece couplings are very popular. It is just a societal tabboo here.

Indeed, it's legal in Sweden - and Sweden doesn't have thousands upon thousands of people with birth defects... So incest can't be an absolutely huge wrecker of society.

[Ronnie92]

Originally Posted by Zoiek

But if the two people use contraception, and in the very worst case scenario, abortion - there is little chance of creating children who will have birth defects.

Also, no one has addressed my point of homosexual couples not making children from sex?

True, true. Yes homosexual couples use alternatives so I guess it could work.

[Trumpetplyer23]

Originally Posted by Zoiek

Also, if you want to get rid of the "missing gene" problem - do you support Social Darwinism (i.e. survival of the fittest)? For instance, should people with Down's Syndrome be killed off to get their genes out of the gene pool forever?

No...Um, I don't support Social Darwinism.

There's a difference between a child born through incest (the parents are making a concious choice to have a child when they know that doing so [because they are related] will cause him/her to have birth defects), then a child born to two parents who are not related at all. They just happen to have a faulty gene. They have no way of knowing the child will have problems until he/she is born.

People with Down's Syndrome are born with a trisomy. Meaning they have an extra chromosome 21.

My cousin has Down's Syndrome...Even though you had no prior knowledge of the fact, I'm still slightly offended.

I mean, I respect your opinion, because you have the right to an opinion. I may not agree with it, but dude, you have the right to it. We will reach an impasse if we keep arguing, which isn't going to help anything and one of us (or potentially both) will get banned. Not a chance I'm willing to take. So, I'm walking out of this conversation *walks out of an imaginary door that says 'exit from this conversation'*

[kh23172]

Originally Posted by Zoiek

Why not? What's wrong with two people who love one another (or just want to have sex) being together?

I think it defeats the purpose for someone to make an exception with incest in mind when you say they "just want to have sex". What the hell is that? That's wrong to just want to have sex.. with someone related to you. That's stupid, disgusting, and ignorant. Normally, I am also open-minded, but I don't agree with incest.

Considering the proven fact that it increases the chances of premature births and birth defects, it shouldn't be allowed. Since when was this an issue either? I hear most people think it's disgusting anyway, which I agree with.

[Zoiek]

Originally Posted by Trumpetplyer23

No...Um, I don't support Social Darwinism.

There's a difference between a child born through incest (the parents are making a concious choice to have a child when they know that doing so [because they are related] will cause him/her to have birth defects), then a child born to two parents who are not related at all. They just happen to have a faulty gene. They have no way of knowing the child will have problems until he/she is born.

People with Down's Syndrome are born with a trisomy. Meaning they have an extra chromosome 21.

My cousin has Down's Syndrome...Even though you had no prior knowledge of the fact, I'm still slightly offended.

I mean, I respect your opinion, because you have the right to an opinion. I may not agree with it, but dude, you have the right to it. We will reach an impasse if we keep arguing, which isn't going to help anything and one of us (or potentially both) will get banned. Not a chance I'm willing to take. So, I'm walking out of this conversation *walks out of an imaginary door that says 'exit from this conversation'*

Uh, it's not really arguing. Neither of us have insulted the other, it's simply debate because our two viewpoints cannot co-exist if they are to become reality.

And I actually think it's very similar. If you want to eliminate the chance of anyone being born with defects then it makes sense to annihilate people who could ever make it happen to the offspring they produce. Thus, your support of the illegalisation of incest due to the chance of a child with birth defects is similar to getting rid of anyone who has any considerable risk of creating a child with birth defects.

Women over forty or so aren't barred from having relationships, sex or children - but it is slightly more likely their baby will have birth defects - is it not?

[Zoiek]

Originally Posted by kh23172

I think it defeats the purpose for someone to make an exception with incest in mind when you say they "just want to have sex". What the hell is that? That's wrong to just want to have sex.. with someone related to you. That's stupid, disgusting, and ignorant. Normally, I am also open-minded, but I don't agree with incest.

Considering the proven fact that it increases the chances of premature births and birth defects, it shouldn't be allowed. Since when was this an issue either? I hear most people think it's disgusting anyway, which I agree with.

I said it should be allowed for two people who love each other or want to have sex with each other, because they should be as free as anyone else. Also, you say the sex is "wrong" but give no reason as to why other than that it might make children who have birth defects - but that is avoided (to a great extent) by contraception or homosexual incest. Do you have a problem with two related males or females having sex? If so, why?

There was a time at which imprisonment of homosexuals was seen as completely valid because the general public found it "disgusting" - but if that happened nowadays you'd be absolutely up in arms over it, because it affects you. Which I find to be quite close minded. Finding something disgusting (and most other people finding it disgusting) is not a valid reason to outlaw something.

And in my original post, I said that. Direct procreation should be avoided. Artificial insemination or adoption can be used instead; which is similar to what homosexuals do, don't you think?

[Lexington]

It's a tough call, in my book. The taboo came about because it was considered desireable to mate outside your family. This brought new DNA into the bloodline, and usually strengthened it. European royal families often married within a very limited pool, which ended up making hemophilia a "royal disease". Breeding outside that pool would've greatly lessened that.

But then again, we're moving to a part where "marriage", "sex" and "breeding" aren't necessarily all one thing. Should two gay sisters be allowed to have sex? It's not like they're going to be "breeding" in the standard sense, so that rationale isn't going to hold. I still would argue against it - not outlaw it, necessarily, but I think it's a bad idea. Why? Because for most people, bringing sex into a relationship alters it in unfathomable ways. We've all known (or been!) friends who "screwed things up" by bringing sex into the relationship. It's one thing to mess up a relationship, or a friendship - as blase as it sounds, you can always get more friends. But you only have so many family members, and quite often, the relationship is very unique. Bringing sex, and quite often, heartbreak into that relationship is going to change it, and it won't ever be the same.

Lex

Originally Posted by Zoiek

And I actually think it's very similar. If you want to eliminate the chance of anyone being born with defects then it makes sense to annihilate people who could ever make it happen to the offspring they produce. Thus, your support of the illegalisation of incest due to the chance of a child with birth defects is similar to getting rid of anyone who has any considerable risk of creating a child with birth defects.

I could be wrong, but I believe that most people with Down's syndrome don't end up having children. And if that is the case, then they obviously won't be passing their genes on. I agree with Trumpetplyer- there is a huge difference between procreating with full knowledge that the child will probably have a defect and procreating otherwise, where there is a relatively small chance.

I personally find incest disgusting, but that's not the reason I think it should remain illegal. As for homosexual incest- do you really think that a law would pass legalizing gay incest and not straight incest? Think realistically. That's not going to happen any time soon.

[Zoiek]

Originally Posted by Drizzt DoUrden

I could be wrong, but I believe that most people with Down's syndrome don't end up having children. And if that is the case, then they obviously won't be passing their genes on. I agree with Trumpetplyer- there is a huge difference between procreating with full knowledge that the child will probably have a defect and procreating otherwise, where there is a relatively small chance.

I personally find incest disgusting, but that's not the reason I think it should remain illegal. As for homosexual incest- do you really think that a law would pass legalizing gay incest and not straight incest? Think realistically. That's not going to happen any time soon.

But if you want to get rid of any chance of birth defects, ridding the Earth of anyone who could pass on faulty genes is quite logical. It's not just couples involved in incest who have a higher chance of creating such children.

Also, I didn't say that only homosexual incest should be legal. I just said that the argument that incest can produce children with birth defects does not reasonably argue against all forms of incest. Thus, saying that incest is always wrong due to the chance of birth defects is generalising and insufficient.