Incest

Remove all ads!

It should also be pointed out that almost every person in the world have a few abnormal genes. As I said earlier, the danger with having children with a genetic relative increases the chances that you are both heterozygous for the same abnormal gene, thus increasing the possibility of having a child with the condition.

So now I get what you're saying T2B. Assuming a recessive trait, the only way you can have a child that manifests the condition is if both you and your mate are carriers of the genetic abnormality. Now that I think about it, what you were saying does make sense. As most genetic abnormalities are fatal, the odds of surviving to have children of your own in such a condition are low.

 

@ Rag. So, in the history of tim, there has never been a culture where marriage between brother and sister was legal and accepted? I wasn't necessarily talking about modern cultures.

But no, you're right. I haven't done the research on this topic. Typing 'incest' into google didn't appeal to me, for some reason. A psychological inhibitor, if you will.

One assumes that being taught to not kill would result in one of these much-lauded psychological inhibitors, so does that make soldiers abberations too?

 

The small population pool to draw from is probaly also the only reason why first Judaism and then Islam allowed cousin intermarriage. Distances were not easily overcome and the focus of life was by then and until way later basically the village and maybe the next. The much larger distances and thin population in the desert must have exacerbated the problem in that it must have made choosing a spouse quite difficult.

PS: Daie, why don't you adress the analogy to paediphiliac parents lacking the inhibitor as well? It would bring you much further than talking about killing. Killing can be justified -- through self defense, a situation of strife where it is either to kill or be killed.

Can you think up a justification for incest, except maybe ignorance (which is sort of moot here)?

 

Inheritance laws. Conservation of genetic superiority (see Einstein marrying his first cousin...) Religious reasons (which justifies anything BTW).

 

Cousins ... ... but this is about brothers and sisters, a closer bond.

 

What is the justification to marry/mate with anyone? I have always said that marriage is just plain foolish, especially when you have to start finding reasons to stay with the b*tch. So do like I do: just get it on as long as she has two legs and a good butt. Let the priests preach in the morning.

 

So if a defect appears in 2 to 3 percent of a population, and it works off recessive genes, then 8 to 12 percent of the population of the previous generation would be carriers of that defective gene. And by incest, you increace the chance of that 8 to 12 percent getting together..

Reckless Endangerment? By knowingly engaging in incest with the piossibility of reproduction, you knowingly subject offspring to such genetic risks. The punishment, if fitting the crime would be as remorseless as the crime itself.

Actually, they aren't. You just don't like what I have to say, so you outright pan that. Incest is prohibited in many religions. And wasn't the idea of forcing/strongly suggesting contraception and/or abortion to the couple in question brought up in the initial post? A religious view is simply another perspective in this debate...

I can't say that I blame you.

Marriage is a covenent. If you "have to start finding reasons to stay with the b*tch", then you have obviously chosen poorly, and as such, then I reserve the right to point and laugh...

 

Because I'm not stupid. That is indefensible, wouldn't hep my arguement, and I refuse to justify that kind of behaviour. In fact, I'm notgoing to even talk about it.

 

Monty,
you pointed out the difference rightly. Indeed there is an abuse of partental influence in paedophiliac parents. That, not to mention the consequences for the child, is what makes child abuse a serious crime.

What they do have in common is that they both have no inhibitions to have sex with siblings - that is the root cause.

The abuse of parental influence in the case of paedophiliac parents is just a means to that end. That in our case the brother and sister are grownups and consenting does only makes it less criminal, not normal.

 

*Applauds* My view exactly.

 

The idea of 'two consenting adults' is poorly constructed. Governments since the beginning of history have had laws about what two consenting adults can and can't do together, and we still do today. Should we make cocaine legal so long as it is kept indoors and 'between consenting adults'? What about prostitution as a way to pay for the crack? That's still two consenting adults (ok, maybe 3 at that point). In a perfectly idealized world, what two consenting adults did together in private would have little to no influence on the rest of the world, but we all know this isn't an idealized world, so what they do does have an impact on the rest of the world.

That being said, I find nothing logically wrong with siblings loving each other, only with siblings having children.

 

The recent discussions about religions have proven that the religious POV only leads to a dead-end, where the cultists only listen to their cult-leaders, since, after all, everyone else is just an outsider without a clue about the "true" path.

Which is why I would appreciate if you didn't refer to religion.

@ Montresor

Ditto. Although I wouldn't know, since I don't have any close relatives.

 

Religion has played a major role in establishing morality. For instance Quakers were very involved in the abolishment movement helping slaves to escape from the south. So I have to agree that:

The fact that some Religious Organizations consider themselves the one true path to eternal salvation is IMO irrelevant and in fact not all Religions believe that.

Perhaps the advances of modern Medicine have made it possible to avoid the pitfalls of incest and therefore we should be less judgemental against it but it is a fact that any children are much more likely to have disabilities. And should be accepted only between consenting adults.

 

I find myself in quite a moral dilemma when thinking about this. Of course I find it to be disgusting, but then I find gay relationships to be a bit gross too and accept those. So really, why would I accept the first and not accept the second? Well one could argue that there's the significantly increased chance of physical and mental disabilities on children of incestious couples, but then I would not want to prevent two disabled adults from marrying and having children even if it resulted in somewhat similar risks. So really if neither of these factors alone make a wrong can they do so together?

I do by no means accept incestious relationship and find them sick and hope they remain banned but I'm having a bit trouble of justifing it for myself without going to the "it's simply wrong" argument.

[ March 24, 2007, 00:45: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Ans as such, I wasn't going that direction this thread. But the point is that a staunchly pro-life religious organization draws a line where they stay silent on the point of abortion in cases of incest should say something relevent in this discussion...

Like "Take the right precautions and keep your deviant behaviour to yourself"? That worked really well 40 years ago with homosexuality, and sooner or later we'll be hearing more about incest.

Truth be told, if someone I knew was having a consentual incestuous relationship, I really wouldn't want to know about it. Just like I don't want to know about who's gay. I don't even want to know about adultery or fornication for that matter. I'm not their Bishop or their husband, therefore it's none of my business.

I think that incest has a stronger moral connotation than homosexuality. I'm not calling you a bible thumper or anything, but you have had some morality ingrained in you from whatever source that is offended by incest...

 

My feelings too, Morgoroth. Further more I was an only child and do not remember ever being told that sexual relationships between siblings was some terrible, evil, perverted thing. I do not know if any studies have been made to find out if there is some biological, neurological, whatever reasons for most people to react strongly against sibling incest.

edit: A Google search turned up this study

I have no idea how valid it is but indicates to me that some studies are being made.

[ March 22, 2007, 07:28: Message edited by: Nakia ]

 

Thanks Nakia, a very good link, a very interesting study!

 

But how does passing the age of consent remove the position of authority from the parent?

There is a huge power difference between a parent and a child who they are raising; and while it decreases when children grow up and become independent, it does not simply disappear overnight.

If a parent refrains from sexual advances until his/her child passes the age of consent; but starts such an incestous relationship a day after, how sure can you be of the "two consenting adults" part? How sure can you be that there was no abuse of power, when the parent was raising his/her child, and that it is not coercion instead? (And this is also the case with adopted children.)

In the cases of siblings the power difference is lesser, and might depend on the age difference, but it still exists.

To use an analogy: sober drivers cause car accidents, drunken drivers cause car accidents; but someone driving under the influence of alcohol is more likely to do so - and that is why it is forbidden.

In the case of incestous relationships there is a far greater chance for abuse, because of the power one partner holds over the other. Even if both parties involved are adults.

 

By the way people, incest is in the Bible -- AND it is written as a good thing.