Incestuous Rights

[Cohen]

See The American Southern States😉

HEY! And another HEY!

Not ALL states are like that!

 

[Schillaci]

I would just like to point out that I am not advocating incest, it is not something that will ever effect me. I think that is an important point to make.

Even though I agree with the fact that you can't really help who you love I still think that incest is kinda wrong...I mean there's a reason animals and plants instinctively avoid incest and it's not moral because moral is human concept...well it's only my opinion and it's not my job to tell people how to live their life.

Western morality is largely borrowed from religious doctrine. Christianity, really, which does not condone homosexuality(which at one point was banned, outlawed and deemed immoral).

I won't totally go against this, but I'm not following it either. I personally think incest is disturbing, but I can't help it, it's just always seemed that way to me. I have a younger sister (huge age difference, but still) and there is no way I would ever think about her in that way. It just feels gross... and wrong. But this is my opinion, and I tend to stick with my opinions.

Honestly, the idea of a brother sister getting it on(or even sister sister, the olsen twins anyone? which by the way happens to be the genesis of this thread) is less disturbing to me than two unrelated men having a gay old time of it. But it doesn't matter that it disturbs me, or you, that doesn't make it wrong. Hell, back in Roman times it was commonplace for the Ceasar to get it on with his sister. Incest, in fact, is quite common among royalty.

But I think members of the opposite sex who are related definetly shouldn't be together, cuz there is the possibility of children (Accidents happen!!) and it wouldn't be fair to that child, as insest can result in genetic mutations. Which I think is also natures way of saying it is wrong!

This is largely a myth circulated by religious claptrap. Yes, it appears that incest can slightly increase the chance of birth defects, but who are you to censor life? To tell two adults they should not be allowed to create life? If that's the case, we should not allow any adults that have defective genes to procreate. Ugly people? You're out too. Idiots? Yep, no offspring for you either. See, you want to stop two consenting adults from creating life, then to me that makes you a fascist, just continue along the obvious train of thought.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

To tell two adults they should not be allowed to create life? If that's the case, we should not allow any adults that have defective genes to procreate. Ugly people? You're out too. Idiots? Yep, no offspring for you either. See, you want to stop two consenting adults from creating life, then to me that makes you a fascist, just continue along the obvious train of thought.

Gingers should be stopped....its awful.
That Wealey Ginger though.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

This is largely a myth circulated by religious claptrap. Yes, it appears that incest can slightly increase the chance of birth defects, but who are you to censor life?

Thats not true at all! Children of incest often die before reaching an age to reproduce, so they don't go on to have children and so they die out. Genetic diversity is a huge part of out ability as a species to live.

There's also loads of random cell mutations that can occur, causing numerous problems.

Then you are also twice as likely to suffer from a disease if both your parents have it, What is it? Haemophilia that spread through out the Royal families cuz they didn't marry out side themselves.

And children of incest are also more vulnerable to patagens (causes illness).

To tell two adults they should not be allowed to create life? If that's the case, we should not allow any adults that have defective genes to procreate. Ugly people? You're out too. Idiots? Yep, no offspring for you either. See, you want to stop two consenting adults from creating life, then to me that makes you a fascist, just continue along the obvious train of thought.

Yeah but it also make the person who does it sick, they go in knowing all this information already and still go through with it. And Incest is illegal in allot of countries - Without them being Fascist, and anyway Fascism is a human term applied to it. If there was no complications from what they do and they were not being allowed to do it, then it would be, but there is. It's not a human law is one of nature the fact that the children gets messed up and have problems and die young is nature weeding it out, in other words it's pointless!!

Show me the research that says Animals instinctively avoid incest please.
Fact is there are animals out there that do have incestuous relations, there are animals out there that eat their own young, there are animals out there that blah blah blah.

There was a study on House Mice that shows that animals avoid getting it on by recognising their own kin, by Dustin Penn and Wayne Potts, where the mice would be able to recognise similar traits in the other mice and would avoid them, instead they would go for a mouse that is dissimilar to them.

Here's their paper

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

There was a study on House Mice that shows that animals avoid getting it on by recognising their own kin, by Dustin Penn and Wayne Potts, where the mice would be able to recognise similar traits in the other mice and would avoid them, instead they would go for a mouse that is dissimilar to them.

Here's their paper

Well I don't have the source online, but I read a fascinating paper written by a friend of mine from Leeds University and Rats were often found 'relating' to kin in the lab.
That maybe because they were in the lab, or may just be the 'any hole is a goal' system.
I've also recently been watching Big Cat Week on BBC 1 and at one point the presenter made comment that in some situations a Lioness has had offspring with Lions from the same mother.

Although animals need diversity to create a sound basis for a stable population sometimes the instinct to reproduce is far more powerful than anything else, including who your parents are...animally speaking.

 

[Schillaci]

Thats not true at all! Children of incest often die before reaching an age to reproduce, so they don't go on to have children and so they die out. Genetic diversity is a huge part of out ability as a species to live.

There's also loads of random cell mutations that can occur, causing numerous problems.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

Inbreeding is breeding between close relatives, whether plant or animal. If practiced repeatedly, it often leads to a reduction in genetic diversity, and the increased expression of negative recessive traits, resulting in inbreeding depression. This may result in inbred individuals exhibiting reduced health and fitness and lower levels of fertility.


For instance the cheetah is a highly inbred species, resulting from a population bottleneck. Many island species are also highly inbred. This is more likely in a population where natural selection is acting.

In an isolated incident, between two siblings, the chances of there being deleterious effects on the child are slim, only slightly increased. Over several generations of repeated inbreeding then yes, the risks increase.

 

[The Arcane]

This is a tricky one for me as although the idea of a brother and sister or other close family combination being involved sexually kinda grosses me out I find myself asking whether or not my personal feelings are enough to stop two people who want to be together from doing just that.

Sure, it's not the norm. I have a sister who I love to bits and I will readily admit she is very attractive (hell, we are a very attractive family! 😉) but there is no sexual feeling there whatsoever and frankly the idea of going that way with her just isn't within me, but that is just me.

If two people discover they have sexual feelings for one another then does it matter what their relationship is beyond that? As long as both are consenting adults then what right does anybody else have to stop them?

One thing I should add because there seems to be a number of people under the wrong impression here. Animals absolutely do partake in incestuous relationships. Trust me, as an owner of five cats, all related in one way or another, I know this! 😉 That said, if the animal kingdom does have a culture of incest then is it all that surprising that it's inside some humans as well?

For me, it boils down to personal freedoms and my feeling that as long as people are not hurting anybody else and are all happy in whatever lifestyle they choose then why the hell would anyone want to get in the way of that? Long as nobody is forced to do anything they don't want to do then I'm okay with it.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

In Harlan Ellison's ground-breaking SF anthology Dangerous Visions there is a story by Theodore Sturgeon If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister? which deals with incest from a relatively sympathetic viewpoint...although

Sturgeon's intention in "If All Men Were Brothers" is partly to shock- the Dangerous Visions anthology was conceived as a collection of SF stories too incendiary to be published elsewhere. But Sturgeon also has the more serious purpose of challenging the reader's preconceptions. He takes a practice everyone knows is wrong and asks, "Why, in particular, is this wrong? Whom does it harm?" The story asks these questions regarding incest, but the point is more general: Sturgeon calls for an intellectual fearlessness, a willingness to ask uncomfortable questions, to follow ideas to their logical conclusions, however unsettling. Or, as Sturgeon, in his afterword to the story, more modestly wrote:
I hope the yarn starts some fruitful argument.
( Source )

...kind of reminds me of a couple of our members 😉

On a more personal note...Eewwww!! No thanks...I'll pass 🙂

 

[The Arcane]

"Why, in particular, is this wrong? Whom does it harm?"

That is precisely the question I begin with whenever one of these so called "moral" questions is raised.

Like I said before, my initial reaction to the debate is similar to Mr. Pointy's "Eewwww!!" as for me the act would be out of the question but then again the same could be said for homosexuality. I REALLY do not want to have sex with another guy but in the case of being gay I would defend any man or woman who chose that lifestyle. Therefore, why should I stand in the way of a person who wants to be involved in an incestuous relationship?

It's a fact that the world is changing a lot faster than many are happy about and frankly there are a hell of a lot of people alive today who think being gay is a mortal sin and that homosexuals are sick in the head. Those people are now the ones who are looked down on as being homophobic and rightly so.

With that in mind though, can we truly be as openminded as we think if we prevent another sexual preference, in this case incest, from going ahead in society just because we ourselves do not practice it or are we being as bad as those who would still like to see homosexuality disappear?

It's one of those moral fine lines that can be very uncomfortable to walk along.

 

[freakydorky]

I'm an only child, so i wouldn't know what It's like to have feelings for a brother or sister. But if you want it, go for it. It should be made legal. The government is just a bunch of fat rich white guys who are all from the south, they're bound to have gotten it on with a sister or two.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

Inbreeding is breeding between close relatives, whether plant or animal. If practiced repeatedly, it often leads to a reduction in genetic diversity, and the increased expression of negative recessive traits, resulting in inbreeding depression. This may result in inbred individuals exhibiting reduced health and fitness and lower levels of fertility.


For instance the cheetah is a highly inbred species, resulting from a population bottleneck. Many island species are also highly inbred. This is more likely in a population where natural selection is acting.

In an isolated incident, between two siblings, the chances of there being deleterious effects on the child are slim, only slightly increased. Over several generations of repeated inbreeding then yes, the risks increase.

I think the word several indicates a longer amount of time, but it can be any amount of time, depending on which genes are selected to go into the child, so it could be one generation it could be six (Although most don't live past 5 generations of inbreeding!)

Then on average per generation around 4.2 mutations occur per generation, and somewhere between 1.4 and 3 can be deleterious, which is harmful to animals that are homozygous

A homozygote's cells are diploid or polyploid and have the same alleles at a locus (position) on homologous chromosomes. When an organism is referred to as being homozygous for a specific gene, it means that it carries two identical copies of that gene for a given trait on the two corresponding chromosomes (e.g., the genotype is AA or aa). Such a cell or such an organism is called a homozygote.

Wikipedia

And the list of things that go wrong with children of inbreeding:

reduced fertility both in litter size and in sperm viability
increased congenital disorders
fluctuating facial asymmetry
lower birth rate
higher infant mortality
slower growth rate
smaller adult size
loss of immune system function.

Same link as above.

Loads of animals also naturally avoid Inbreeding

[edit] Natural means to avoid inbreeding
Many animals and higher plants have ways to minimize inbreeding. They can be mechanical or societal.

An example of mechanical means is the sweet cherry. It has an elaborate biochemical mechanism that precludes self-fertilization and combination of gametes of high genetic similarity. Fruit flies, on the other hand, have a sensing mechanism to do the same thing, and more genetic diversity than expected by random mating is observed even in a closed population.

The incest taboo in humans is a societal means to avoid inbreeding. Mating with close relatives is often forbidden, although the definition of "close relatives" varies - it can include immediate family (parents, siblings), extended family (cousins) or even exclude whole generations (anyone of your father/mother's generation).

Many pack or herd animals (such as lions, horses and dogs) practice a social method to reduce inbreeding: young males are expelled from the group before they reach sexual maturity and might become competition for the alpha male, the only one to have sexual rights within his group.

Same Wikipage as above.

This would be one thing I would be really feel is wrong, Other animals may do it but they are also not as genetically advanced as us so just cuz animals do it doesn't me we do it too.

I think the fact that, even if it takes generations to occur, problems arise shows that it's wrong. And not society saying it's wrong, or peoples opinions saying it, but nature tells us it's wrong!

 

[The Arcane]

Okay then, so as not to confuse the issue too much, let's remove reproduction from the equation altogether because whilst we can go backward and forward on the science of it all day I tend to see that as an easy get out for not saying what you eally think on the matter.

The fact is that whilst the odds for genetic defects may or may not be higher in an incestuous relationship it is by no means certain that there would be any problems. Truthfully, children are born every day with these problems even in regular situations with unrelated couples. With that in mind I think it may be easier to deal with the relationship itself rather than speculate further.

Let's assume that we are talking about a brother and sister with absolutely no desire to have children together. That removes any possibility of there being harm to offspring. Considering that this is the main objection for incest as far as science is concerned then how do you feel about it under those circumstances?

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Personally I think it disgusting, I think it's gross and wrong. And anyone that would do it has slight problems, and I would honestly have a low opinion of someone that would do it.

 

[Schillaci]

This would be one thing I would be really feel is wrong, Other animals may do it but they are also not as genetically advanced as us so just cuz animals do it doesn't me we do it too.

I think the fact that, even if it takes generations to occur, problems arise shows that it's wrong. And not society saying it's wrong, or peoples opinions saying it, but nature tells us it's wrong!

You think incest is unnatural, yet we live in times where life can be created without the act of copulation, is that natural?

If you truly thought about your statement you would realise it is a little absurd, and somewhat naive. We all die, is that natures way of telling us life is wrong?

There is very very little(in fact find one case) scientific research been done on a human child born of two siblings. It is not something that is easy to research, because it is so taboo, people keep it a secret.

Personally I think it disgusting, I think it's gross and wrong. And anyone that would do it has slight problems, and I would honestly have a low opinion of someone that would do it.

As a heterosexual man I think male homosexual sex is disturbing. So what. It happens.

On the subject of homosexuality, if we lived in pre genetic manipulation times then I would say that homosexuality would be much more dangerous to our species than incest. No children would be born of a homosexual couple, at least with incest there would be.

But all that detracts from the issue, and I think it is one that you're missing. I believe that you should 'dance if you want to dance'. And they will dance if they want to dance, so why persecute them for it?

You know they're gonna go, which way they wanna go. All we know is that we don't know. Life on the other hand won't make you understand, we're all part of the MAAAAAAAAAASTERPLAAN!

 

[The Arcane]

But all that detracts from the issue, and I think it is one that you're missing. I believe that you should 'dance if you want to dance'. And they will dance if they want to dance, so why persecute them for it?

You know they're gonna go, which way they wanna go. All we know is that we don't know. Life on the other hand won't make you understand, we're all part of the MAAAAAAAAAASTERPLAAN!

Not only an excellent point, well made but also one of the greatest songs ever written. Bonus. 🙂

I have to agree though. We all have our own views on what is right for ourselves, which is fair enough, but when you judge others purely on your own perception of right and wrong then I think you are getting into the area of trying to limit others personal freedoms.

What you think is right and wrong should be limited strictly to how you live your own life and not be used to judge the lives of others. As long as what is being done is not causing harm to others then people should be free to do whatever they choose.

Unless they choose to buy Westlife or Celine Dion CDs. That is just sick and should be banned.

 

[Jill_Valentine]

I can't be bothered replying properly to this thread, but you're all making a fundamental error in your reasoning which I find quite disturbing.

Unfortunately your original assumption was wrong, and with that the rest of your post (which was also filled with errors) fell apart.

That you want to twist the discussion because you are seemingly blessed with some knowledge that will shock and astound me is quite hilarious.

Have you seen the film Cruel Intentions? There is a line SMG says when she is lying across the bed, "you can put it anywhere". These words just happen to play on loop inside the minds of all animals. And funnily enough they do...put it anywhere. Think of a place, some animal has rubbed its little pecker there for a moment of pleasure.

Animals also force themselves on other animals, I guess we'd call that rape, huh?
Animals also kill other animals, I guess we'd call that murder, huh?

You want to argue nature, then make the distinction and conjure up a better argument. I have.

Again, because Metric were so good my Atheism stands badly rattled and my entire upper body still hurts three days later, I'm going to let the general tone of this post go. I also going to let you away with the entirely unironic tone of that last bit there through the miracle of dimplomatic selective blindness. I'm just sweet that way.

Now, having heard the incest/ homosexuality debate ad nauseum in the past, I made an assumption that the reason the comparison was made this time around was much the same as the last few times, ie. That both are "unnatural", therefore both stand within feet of each other on Shaky Moral Ground. Now, sure, exclusively homosexual animals occur with frequency approaching humans. But you're right, human society is as different from animal society as animal societies are from each other, and from the second we started walking upright we left that comparison far behind. I don't want to argue nature, so I built that in to save us going down that route. But if that was genuinely not your intention, then I apologise.

Now, yeah, fair enough about the frequencies of genetic abnormality in the first generation. But take it to the second generation. If mom and dad had been brother and sister, then they can't really say that their kids have no right to reproduce together. Then onto the third generation. And so on, and so on. At what point do we decide that it's not on anymore? Why does one generation stand more entitled than it's successor?

Besides which, I've yet to see an example of an incestuous relationship that was anywhere in the galaxy of healthy. Not in terms of just incest, but in terms of having started when one or both partners were pretty seriously underage, or having had some form of abuse present.

 

[The Arcane]

Now, having heard the incest/ homosexuality debate ad nauseum in the past, I made an assumption that the reason the comparison was made this time around was much the same as the last few times, ie. That both are "unnatural", therefore both stand within feet of each other on Shaky Moral Ground. Now, sure, exclusively homosexual animals occur with frequency approaching humans. But you're right, human society is as different from animal society as animal societies are from each other, and from the second we started walking upright we left that comparison far behind. I don't want to argue nature, so I built that in to save us going down that route. But if that was genuinely not your intention, then I apologise.

I can't speak for Dzhug here but given that I've used the same homosexuality comparison I can certainly say for myself that I never once compared it to incest with the idea that either sexual act was "unnatural". The comparison was made in relation to the fact that both have been or are considered a taboo form of relationship in society.

I actually think that any sexual drive, whether it be legal, illegal, accepted, unaccepted, whatever else, is entirely natural and in that sometimes lies the problem of controlling it.

Whilst I think that it is a despicable act I still believe that child abuse is "natural", for want of a better term, in that it is carried out due to a sexual desire within the abuser. That is the reason that many cannot stop no matter how much they fear getting caught or the punishment they will receive.

In the case of child abuse (or any form of rape) the act is absolutely wrong because there is one party involved that is not consenting and therefore I clearly do not want to give the impression that I'm condoning this but at the same time it comes from within the person carrying out the act. It is a part of who he or she is and so entirely natural. Just, in this case, also entirely wrong.

Both homosexuality and incest are entirely natural urges as far as I am concerned as they are a sexual drive within the people carrying them out so again I want to make it clear that comparing the two is about how they are viewed in society rather than what they truly are.

Now, yeah, fair enough about the frequencies of genetic abnormality in the first generation. But take it to the second generation. If mom and dad had been brother and sister, then they can't really say that their kids have no right to reproduce together. Then onto the third generation. And so on, and so on. At what point do we decide that it's not on anymore? Why does one generation stand more entitled than it's successor?

As I said before, this part of the argument is only relevant if we are discussing a couple who actually want kids but let's say that they do. If an incestuous couple did have a kid then who is to say they will have more than one? If they did have more than one then who is to say that the kids will have any interest in one another at all? A straight guy can have a gay son and a gay woman may well give birth to a straight daughter. It's purely chance how you will be born.

With all that in mind, is it really fair to stop a couple being together based upon a hell of a lot of future possibilities that may never occur?

Besides which, I've yet to see an example of an incestuous relationship that was anywhere in the galaxy of healthy. Not in terms of just incest, but in terms of having started when one or both partners were pretty seriously underage, or having had some form of abuse present.

Maybe true but then I'd imagine that a hundred years or so ago the same could have been said for gay relationships. All you would have heard spoken about would have been the evils of that lifestyle and how it could only have started due to some form of abuse. These days we know better because gay couples are an accepted part of society. Maybe if incest became accepted you would suddenly hear about a hell of a lot more healthy examples of it going on around you.

 

[Schillaci]

Again, because Metric were so good my Atheism stands badly rattled and my entire upper body still hurts three days later, I'm going to let the general tone of this post go. I also going to let you away with the entirely unironic tone of that last bit there through the miracle of dimplomatic selective blindness. I'm just sweet that way.

What planet are you from? You are under some delusion that you could somehow, someway, dictate to me how I should express my opinion. Your feeble little attempts to be the dominant voice between us simply won't work. You're *not* going to do anything. You can simply reply, or you can not reply. Just step out the bubble.

Besides which, I've yet to see an example of an incestuous relationship that was anywhere in the galaxy of healthy. Not in terms of just incest, but in terms of having started when one or both partners were pretty seriously underage, or having had some form of abuse present.

The only cases ever brought to our attention (generally through court)are the ones where abuse is present. So obviously you will think all incestuous relationships are unhealthy. That doesn't mean they are, it just means the healthy ones are kept secret for fear of being treated like scum.

I can't speak for Dzhug here but given that I've used the same homosexuality comparison I can certainly say for myself that I never once compared it to incest with the idea that either sexual act was "unnatural". The comparison was made in relation to the fact that both have been or are considered a taboo form of relationship in society.

Yes, more than that though. I think it is rather hypocritical that people would push for equal rights to homosexuals and then deny that the exact same argument can be used for incest.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Yes, more than that though. I think it is rather hypocritical that people would push for equal rights to homosexuals and then deny that the exact same argument can be used for incest.

But it can't really, Incest and Homosexuality are very different things. I just think it's wrong, People also like to have sex with dead bodies should we be helping them dig them up too? Others like to have sex with Animals, should we be giveing them our pets when they feel their urge??

I think there are some lines you don't cross and thats one of them!

 

[The Arcane]

But it can't really, Incest and Homosexuality are very different things. I just think it's wrong, People also like to have sex with dead bodies should we be helping them dig them up too? Others like to have sex with Animals, should we be giveing them our pets when they feel their urge??

I think there are some lines you don't cross and thats one of them!

Incest and homosexuality are the same thing in that they involve two consenting adults who want to be together in a sexual relationship. Sex with a dead body or an animal is not the same thing at all.

What I'm arguing for here is the freedom of choice for two people to decide who they want to share their life and their bed with, without persecution from society. Bringing other forms of sexual desire into the debate means that you might as well compare it to rape or child abuse, which as I said earlier are very different things and there obviously has to be a line somewhere.

A sexual act that involves any form of attack, abuse or forced involvement is absolutely wrong. An incestuous relationship where both parties are happy and willing is far from being that though.