Incest should stay illegal or in some other, more constructive form hindered.
Inbreeding is not the biggest, real problem that I see. Let the idiots ruin their genepools, we have too many people on this planet and no help in sight. And we're already so efficiently ruining our genepool with so many other methods (sociologically, chemically, physiologically...) that this little bit of screwed-up corruption doesn't really weigh in much on the global scale.
The bigger problem that I have is the ethical one regarding children who will never be able to develop a normal and natural sexuality. Who don't stand a chance to protect themselves against their parents and who stand no chance to realize what is goign on and how it will change their lives.
incest is definitely comparable to homosexuality. it's someone's (well, two people's, usually) choice and personal sex-life that's none of no-one else's concern.
the problem is that when the word "incest" is used, people often think of statutory rape. but incest is wider than that, so it should be a good idea to seperate the two when debating them.
The issue is that people assume that b/c they are married they are going to have children. If the only point of marriage was to create kids then there would be no gay marriage age as that does not create kids. Thus any argument on if a marriage should be allowed or not based on the resulting theoretical children is mute.
You mean it is not? Free country my ass. Also I believe incest refers specifically to breeding, irregardless of marriage. The non married might commit incest, and a married couple might not (despite being closely related).
This comes down to whether the parents have a right to risk the health and minds of their children. Some would say they do not, since they have no right to subject their potential offspring to an increased risk of defect. However a very similar argument might also say that the poor have no right to subject THEIR offspring to increased risk of squalor, criminality and ill-use. Factors which are all strongly correlated with poverty. So I say screw them. Or those with genetic diseases should not be allowed to subject their children to a great risk of their disease. At that point this begins to look like a form of eugenics, a thing most people are convinced society has left behind.
AurOn2COOKIES! FREEDOM, AND BISCUITS!AustraliaJoin Date: 2012-01-13Member: 140224Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Forum staff
edited February 2014
Really the only problem with incest is with people doing it through multiple generations (think Alexandrian Egypt - the Ptolemies, and roman emperors) there's no real scientific proof that one-offs provide a significant boost to child mortality rates or even birth-defects. but that's only because there's been little to no research on the matter due to moral taboo nonsense.
sibling incest couples i can sort of get. parent/child ones really give me goosebumps though.
Still not into it though.
Humans cannot be controlled therefore children will be born and/or molested.
Also it is proven that children born from incest are way more susceptible to genetic diseases/malfunctions.
Also it is proven that children born from incest are way more susceptible to genetic diseases/malfunctions.
Proven by what studies might i ask? It's been proven after several generations and ONLY after several generations that genetic diseases/malfunctions occur.
I read about it in an article from a (renowned) german newspaper. There's an online variant of it but it's only in german. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/risikofaktor-inzest-was-steckt-hinter-dem-tabu-1.270521
It's based on a study of the Technical University Of Munich. I could look up the study directly but I'm not really in the mood for an argument in this part of the forums and I guess you can google yourself if it's that important to you?
So here's the catch:
Every human has about six defect genes by birth, however since you have two pairs (one from each parents) they usually don't cause any defects.
So if two siblings have a child chances are high that they both hand down the faulty gene.
In their biggest study they tested over 160 children from incestious relations.
About 40 percent of those were mentally challenged (two thirds heavily)
The parents in question were arguably already mentally challenged for entering such a relationsship so the foundings might be higher than usual.
However it can't be denied that those children suffer from a higher chance of defects.
Look at it this way:
If you believe in Christianity, you believe in two people - therefore we are all related and everybody is born from incest.
If you believe in evolution, we all had to come from some single cell - therefore we are all related and everybody is born from incest.
Every human has about six defect genes by birth, however since you have two pairs (one from each parents) they usually don't cause any defects.
So if two siblings have a child chances are high that they both hand down the faulty gene.
In their biggest study they tested over 160 children from incestious relations.
About 40 percent of those were mentally challenged (two thirds heavily)
The parents in question were arguably already mentally challenged for entering such a relationsship so the foundings might be higher than usual.
However it can't be denied that those children suffer from a higher chance of defects.
But that is not necessarily what is meant by incest. I would agree with you that it should not be allowed that two closely related persons bring a child into the world. But here we're talking only about the question of the offspring. Incest usually has two meanings: (1) two closely related persons live together as a couple; (2) two closely related people have sex together. Neither of both meanings necessarily includes having a baby. A brother and a sister could by all means live together as a couple and have sex and it wouldn't be any problem if they use contraception. If Incest is merely reduced to the issues that arise if those persons have a baby, I think that's not anymore what Incest is about.
I can see no logical link between two closely related persons living together and using contraception and gene defects that arouse from those two people having a baby. When discussing Incest I think the questions is usually "Should those two persons be allowed to marry / live together as a couple?" That questions has no direct relation to the question of having a baby. You can have sex without being married and you can be married without having a baby. Thus, I'd say that it should be allowed that siblings, and so on can marry and live together as a couple. I might not like it by my personal liking and no argument whatsoever. And so far, aside from the good ol' "That's immoral!" or "That's just sick!" I can think of no reasonable argument why two people who are in love shouldn't be allowed to live together as a couple. Of course that does not include having a baby. Inbreed is without any doubt an issue.
Aside from that I won't go into the discussion about the public health, general population and so on. To me, that sounds like the discourse which was prevalent during the 20s and 30s in several countries: eugenics. Talking about people's live from the perspective of "public health" or "general population" is unworthy of the 21st century.
I don't agree with Homosexuality, and Incest as per my moral standards, but that is their opinion, and their way they want to live their life and I have no problem with them living like that, just don't force other's to accept it. If Homosexuality is allowed, why limit other people's Sexual Orientation, and Lifestyle.
Although, I will say I think the "Left", or Liberals agree with "Gay" Marriage only as a Political Card for more votes, I'm independent though so...yeah.
Aside from that I won't go into the discussion about the public health, general population and so on. To me, that sounds like the discourse which was prevalent during the 20s and 30s in several countries: eugenics. Talking about people's live from the perspective of "public health" or "general population" is unworthy of the 21st century.
Eugenics may have been used to promote social darwinism and racial supremacy in the past but with our newly developed understanding of biological anthropology, it can carry a completely different purpose. One which I do not fundamentally disagree with. Inbreeding and artificial insemination should carry the same religious and social taboos. This is something that can have profound effects on our genetic quality.
I don't agree with Homosexuality, and Incest as per my moral standards, but that is their opinion, and their way they want to live their life and I have no problem with them living like that, just don't force other's to accept it. If Homosexuality is allowed, why limit other people's Sexual Orientation, and Lifestyle.
Although, I will say I think the "Left", or Liberals agree with "Gay" Marriage only as a Political Card for more votes, I'm independent though so...yeah.
Is allowing gay marriage forcing other people to accept it? If marriage is not the same spiritually for all religions then why are we forced to obey marriage laws? And btw don't be fooled by American politics, liberal and conservative is actually a definition for how someone interprets law, doesn't have to do with your political party.
I don't believe in marriage period. Especially Christian marriage's "till death do us part." What a spiritual deal breaker.
Comments
Inbreeding is not the biggest, real problem that I see. Let the idiots ruin their genepools, we have too many people on this planet and no help in sight. And we're already so efficiently ruining our genepool with so many other methods (sociologically, chemically, physiologically...) that this little bit of screwed-up corruption doesn't really weigh in much on the global scale.
The bigger problem that I have is the ethical one regarding children who will never be able to develop a normal and natural sexuality. Who don't stand a chance to protect themselves against their parents and who stand no chance to realize what is goign on and how it will change their lives.
Yes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Between_adult_siblings
That's the only case of it I've ever heard of, but then, I haven't heard of many incestuous couples period.
the problem is that when the word "incest" is used, people often think of statutory rape. but incest is wider than that, so it should be a good idea to seperate the two when debating them.
This comes down to whether the parents have a right to risk the health and minds of their children. Some would say they do not, since they have no right to subject their potential offspring to an increased risk of defect. However a very similar argument might also say that the poor have no right to subject THEIR offspring to increased risk of squalor, criminality and ill-use. Factors which are all strongly correlated with poverty. So I say screw them. Or those with genetic diseases should not be allowed to subject their children to a great risk of their disease. At that point this begins to look like a form of eugenics, a thing most people are convinced society has left behind.
sibling incest couples i can sort of get. parent/child ones really give me goosebumps though.
Still not into it though.
Disapprove because of obvious reasons.
Also it is proven that children born from incest are way more susceptible to genetic diseases/malfunctions.
Obvious right? :P
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/risikofaktor-inzest-was-steckt-hinter-dem-tabu-1.270521
It's based on a study of the Technical University Of Munich. I could look up the study directly but I'm not really in the mood for an argument in this part of the forums and I guess you can google yourself if it's that important to you?
So here's the catch:
Every human has about six defect genes by birth, however since you have two pairs (one from each parents) they usually don't cause any defects.
So if two siblings have a child chances are high that they both hand down the faulty gene.
In their biggest study they tested over 160 children from incestious relations.
About 40 percent of those were mentally challenged (two thirds heavily)
The parents in question were arguably already mentally challenged for entering such a relationsship so the foundings might be higher than usual.
However it can't be denied that those children suffer from a higher chance of defects.
If you believe in Christianity, you believe in two people - therefore we are all related and everybody is born from incest.
If you believe in evolution, we all had to come from some single cell - therefore we are all related and everybody is born from incest.
But that is not necessarily what is meant by incest. I would agree with you that it should not be allowed that two closely related persons bring a child into the world. But here we're talking only about the question of the offspring. Incest usually has two meanings: (1) two closely related persons live together as a couple; (2) two closely related people have sex together. Neither of both meanings necessarily includes having a baby. A brother and a sister could by all means live together as a couple and have sex and it wouldn't be any problem if they use contraception. If Incest is merely reduced to the issues that arise if those persons have a baby, I think that's not anymore what Incest is about.
I can see no logical link between two closely related persons living together and using contraception and gene defects that arouse from those two people having a baby. When discussing Incest I think the questions is usually "Should those two persons be allowed to marry / live together as a couple?" That questions has no direct relation to the question of having a baby. You can have sex without being married and you can be married without having a baby. Thus, I'd say that it should be allowed that siblings, and so on can marry and live together as a couple. I might not like it by my personal liking and no argument whatsoever. And so far, aside from the good ol' "That's immoral!" or "That's just sick!" I can think of no reasonable argument why two people who are in love shouldn't be allowed to live together as a couple. Of course that does not include having a baby. Inbreed is without any doubt an issue.
Aside from that I won't go into the discussion about the public health, general population and so on. To me, that sounds like the discourse which was prevalent during the 20s and 30s in several countries: eugenics. Talking about people's live from the perspective of "public health" or "general population" is unworthy of the 21st century.
Although, I will say I think the "Left", or Liberals agree with "Gay" Marriage only as a Political Card for more votes, I'm independent though so...yeah.