Opinions on Incest

Discussion in 'Discussion' started by Jube, May 9, 2012.

  1. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    Again read my other posts, they discuss further my arguments, I was giving a brief overview of my reasoning, I didn't say it was everything nor in the greatest detail.
    Quote and dissect those and I'll discuss whatever parts of my reasoning you find at fault.
    And concerning the manipulation, that would depend mostly on the degree of manipulation, and what your intent is. I've found incestuous relationships to be more of a play on status rather than personality based. They are family and they are inherently seen as an obligation, almost, to caring for them in some capacity no matter what. And in most cases, incest relationships are between an elder 'manipulator' member and a younger 'seduced' member. Status as an elder in the family means to follow them to some level, to listen and do what they want. Family dynamics are much more different than meeting with strangers, the factors are all social, true, but in terms of general survival letting a family have relationships in the family dilutes the entire unit. Your genes will falter over generations, more health and complications, etc.
    It's just too negative biologically and emotionally for me to see it as a good thing.
    At best, a romantic relationship but with no breeding allowed.
    Ok so I went on more than I wanted in this post...
     
  2. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    I think I get what you mean, but I don't see how this is a reason for incestuous relationships to be forbidden at all. Again, I was explicitly referring to relationships between consensual adults. Whether these relationships are likely to last happily ever after is irrelevant. Good girls date jerks, good guys date bitches. I'm sure it happens at different rates in different layers of society, for lack of a better term. Hearts will be broken. It happens. This is not a basis for legal judgement, as "It just don't feel right" never is. The only time your point would be even semi-valid is when these kinds of relationships have no chance of working out at all. I'm sure you're wise enough not to go as far as to actually try that argument.

    The prevalence of HIV is about 100 times higher in homosexual couples than it is in heterosexual couples (at least here it is). Would you disallow homosexual sex given these health risks? That's basically what you are implying.
    Don't get me wrong...I don't automatically defend irresponsible sex. My stance on abortion is pro-choice all the way, but even I scowl when a teenager has a fetus pulled out of her vag because she felt really horny that one time she didn't have a condom on hand and the pill tasted icky. My point is that these higher risks are no basis to prohibit something entirely.
     
  3. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    Not a big fan of looking through my old posts to answer these questions but oh well...

    It doesn't feel right to me, don't know why but I can't explain the feeling of almost disgust at the idea, almost not entirely. I'm still generally an open person and I don't have much experience with incestuous relationships so I don't really have anything to go off of, and won't properly conclude my view till then. I don't agree with it. But I'm trying to give reasons why I have this viewpoint.

    Anyway this was my counter argument to why a failed relationship can potentially be worse than a typical one.
    I meant no procreation, not no sex. At best, romantic relationship with sex, the problem with an incestuous relationship is offspring. The mix off too similar genes of an incestuous relationship dilutes the gene pool, causing less diversity and generally physical, physiological and mental problems in any offspring from such a relationship. Patman used good knowledge and pieces of evidence on the subject and in detail before, consult them if you wanna know a bit more.
    This was my tid bit on it:

     
  4. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    Me neither, so thank you for re-iterating your point and sorry for being lazy.

    And I in turn can't help but feel that this is a bit hypocritical. I must admit that my experience isn't that expansive either, and I myself don't even have siblings.

    Found it a weak argument to be honest, though not completely invalid. There are many siblings that grow apart and hardly see each other anymore, if ever. They don't seem to be particularly bothered by it either, which makes me skeptical of the true value of "common blood".

    Been there, seen it: majoring in Behavioural & Evolutionary Biology tends to teach me a thing or two about the subject. Analogy still stands; think about it.
    That being said, I doubt a handful of incestuous couples diluting our gene pool is going to be the bane of human civilization.
     
  5. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    Exactly how was it hypocritical? I said I had a feeling, it lead me to construct a viewpoint, i've tried to pursue why I have this belief, with my little experience and yet am still open to suggestion against my beliefs.
    I thought this was a good mindset to have.

    When I was in Psychology, it's clear that a closely bonded family can help improve sociability, mental health, happiness, and I number of other things i'm forgetting. The point is a close knit family is for the better, incest or not, this unitentionally complicates and further degrades familal connection, whether you're blood related or not. The only positive I can see from this type of relationship is sexual pleasure and possibly some romantic connection. Nothing else. I've not seen anyone argue the positives of this type if relationship, only that it's their choice to do it, their right. I find this a weak argument, everyone has choices, most people make stupid ones, especially in relationships. The reason familis break up are because of silly and stupid choices. My mother's side of the family i've never met because they thought our side wasn't worth the time after my grandfather died, all while i was a bab. A bitter family problem over stupid choices. I can only imagine the divide incest could cause.

    But you're saying why it isn't accepted. If it was accepted in the whole of society and incest was occuring more openly an dperiodically our gene pool could very much dilute itself, not to maybe the standards of the tigers, but would likely weaken the species as a whole.
    And as has been said before, incestuous offspring are more likely to suffer greater chances of defects and health problems in general. How ethical is it to willing know these risks and try anyway? Why not simply adopt, we have enough children in the world who deserve families instead of a child who may have togot rhough rigorous painful treatment for the rest of their short lives.
     
  6. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    I was refering to the double standard of being supportive of homosexual relationships whilst opposing incestual relationships.

    Relationships are close bonds.

    Which, yet again, can be said for the vast majority of relationships. A pragmatic benefit is not necessary when it comes to relationships, and in fact, it would be unwise to give the practical advantages that do arise too much weight. Arranged marriages have shown how poor those can turn out to be.

    Tell me more about how we should only allow things that are good for you, especially when it involves romantic feelings. Also, thank you for playing into my hand and basically stating outright that my "homosexual HIV" analogy is valid.

    Perhaps sounding corny will help me get across what should have been a given.
    Genuine consensual love should have the right to exist, regardless of how the two lovebirds are related. No other "positive" is necessary. These two people (or three or four or whatever) have the right to take responsibility in any way they want it, instead of some law doing it for them. The mistake you make, and just about everyone else opposing these relationships, is assuming incestuous relationships are irresponsible by default. I am wary of siblings having kids; I never said I wasn't. More importantly though, I am against targeting well-meaning couples along with the bad apples.

    Picture perfect example of circle reasoning you got there: it's bad so it's frowned upon so it's bad. Couldn't have done it better. Bravo!

    Genetic aversion says hi! Countless generations of evolution has provided us with systems that help prevent inbreeding depression, thank you very much. Incest will be rare even if its social context changes for the better, but the ones that do manage to slip past this natural aversion for similar genes deserve to be acknowledged as relationships as much as any other romantic tale. Long story short: to suggest that inbreeding depression would impact Western civilization, with its easy access to a vast amount of human populations and subpopulations across the globe, in any noteworthy way by legalizing incest may very well be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on the subject.

    Completely agreed, but see above. Derogating incest as a whole for this reason alone is comparable to condemning abortion because of horny teenagers.
     
  7. Mysty Unknown

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Location:
    Unknown
    835
    I would say morally it is wrong and in culture frowned upon. However genetically there is not much risk. It is about a 1 in 10 chance that an offspring will show any forms of deformity, but it also gives the child a reason to see that it is okay and maybe continue the trend creating the chance to be much more likely than normal. I do not see it as a good thing for religious reasons, but to each his own.
     
  8. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    Alright after finally reading your analogy back, no I don't think it has a link in what I'm trying to state. Gay relationships are fine to me, they are a consensual and personal thing, if there is greater health risks in homosexuals then it is their decision to engage in that sexual activity. Genetically they can not procreate, so I have no problems with that. I wouldn't even have as much of a problem with a gay or lesbian incest couple because the fact genetically they can't procreate.

    My problem is that heterosexual couples can procreate. If they choose to have an incestuous child, they are forcing the child into world with all the health risks involved, and the child has no say in the matter what so ever. I know it will be said that's true of all parents, but in the end I stand by that if you're going to procreate do it with the lowest risks possible in your couple and understand the possible consequences that can happen. Inherently, incest will increase the risks by a larger degree then most other cases of procreation I've heard of. Before I said I was fine with a heterosexual couple if they had a romantic couple but would not procreate.

    That is the only thing I stand by fully. Otherwise, go on and sleep with whatever family member you like, whether it's your 18 year old sister or 70 year old grandmother, as long as you don't procreate.
    Now, again, I don't support incestuous relationships to a degree because of the social (not societal) factors that can arise within a family dynamic, the inherent stagnation it causes in that generation, a few other minor things, and because I don't support the idea personally. May not be empirical, but I can't deny my personal feelings on the subject, because it is a reason I am against it.

    Legalising it would increase the likelihood of incestuous births, which I am against (as explained already for), which is why I am against legalising it.
     
  9. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    I'll just stick to the most important bits of your text.

    Like I said, HIV is more prevalent in homosexual couples. They, more so than heterosexual couples, are keeping HIV alive and thriving in a population. That's the sad truth. This will inevitably affect non-homosexuals at some point (through bisexuals and non-sexual transmission). And somehow, you are more concerned with dilution of the gene pool. Somehow, you do not have enough qualms with irresponsible homosexual sex to be against its legalisation, but you are opposed to irresponsible incestuous sex. If this isn't a double standard to you, then I advise you to look up the term.

    I understand that the big difference to you is that gays make a conscious choice of being at risk, whilst the child of an incestuous couple does not. I can see where this is coming from, but read above: heterosexuals will eventually fall victim to gay-transmitted HIV as well. They are the unborn child in the analogy: the ones who suffer from the risk a certain group is carrying. It's not quite the same, but it's close enough.

    I don't defend incestuous procreation either. Read again.

    And driving cars increases the likelihood of car accidents. Anyway, this is exactly what I mean by targeting well-meaning couples along with irresponsible ones, which you can't justify regardless of which trick in the Grand Debating Book you use. If anything is unethical, it's denying someone a right because of what they might do wrong on no particular basis. Your moral high horse is hereby felled.
     
  10. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    First, please stop putting ideas and words into my mouth I have yet to address. You've been doing this for a few posts now, but most of your paragraph there was just putting words into my mouth. Just make your points and I'll address them, or better yet just ask me if I believe this or that.

    I will state, I was never focused on the sex of incest, I only focused on the procreation side. I never commented on incest sexual responsibility. You're comparing procreation with sex, obviously sex is needed for pro creation, but in the context I've been putting, sex and pro creation are separate in the health risks that are being mentioned.
    HIV already is in heterosexual populations, as far as I knew, so it's a management job. As far as I know, gay rights groups and other gay centred groups are teaching their members the safety required for HIV. As well as treatment, greater society knowledge on HIV, etc. If HIV is incurable then it's merely reducing the risk tot he population by warning against the actions of the infected. We can't stop HIV by going 'no more sex for gays'.
    A) Wouldn't stop them, this is obvious from history
    B) if you tell gay people to stop having homosexual sex, they could just go to heterosexual sex, increasing the infection of straight people with HIV
    And if incest was legalised, I would strongly support the need and requirement for knowledge and teaching of the risks of having incestuous sex. I was mainly saying it should never get that for, but if it did then I would promote safer incestuous sex. I'm always the person who in a discussion with sex with someone emphasises that you need to take safe and precautions steps, whether it be straight, gay, orgy, it doesn't matter. Everyone having sex should know who you're getting into bed with and what they might have, enquire, discover because the last thing you want to find out is that you've contracted AIDs by just not putting enough attention towards your health.

    Cars are beneficial and useful in a great many things than legal incest would be.
    So how can we distinguish the difference between a well meaning and not well meaning incestuous couple? Is there a test or a certain uniqueness that can be quantified? We can't tell any couple, truly and completely, is responsible and well meaning. I'm not trying to get on a moral high horse.
    And should all rights be allowed? Should murder, rape, torture, lethal drugs all be allowed because it is someone's choice? I don't believe anyone inherently has rights, they are earned and toiled on, deserved and disciplined, you shouldn't just be born with them and expect that to protect your actions.
     
  11. Cherry Berry Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Location:
    Nudist Beach
    485
    Not going to lie, the concept of incest really grosses me out. But, it's their life at the end of the day. As long as both parties have consented, and there's no manipulation/any form of abuse behind it, then you can't really argue. I just feel really bad for people who don't find out they're brother and sister until after they've fallen for each other/done the deed etc.

    Now, with cousins... I don't see it as gross as lets say, a brother/sister/father/mother sharing THAT kind of an intimate relationship. Mainly, because they're not directly part of your family so to speak. I still personally find the relationship itself icky (hell, I've seen a few cousins of my own bunking about... which adds to my own beliefs of it being "gross") but you wouldn't see me going around pushing my beliefs onto other people now, would you?

    Unless they're not aware of the risks that come with the pregnancy/offspring themselves, I think those people stand a chance like any normal couple who's planning for kids.
     
  12. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    No, I am saying that being against this or that has greater implications than you seem to be aware of, and denying them makes you a hypocrite. I'm not putting words into your mouth; you still have every possibility to prove me wrong.

    Just because they are different doesn't mean the difference is relevant in this case. In homosexual couples, HIV is a major risk through sex while in incestuous couples, birth defects are a major risk through procreative sex. They are both minorities that risk compromising the well-being of people not belonging to those minorities. How are you not seeing this and still stubbornly clinging to your sex =/= procreation non-argument?


    Replace HIV with birth defects along with some other minor adjustments and see how well this argument works out for me.

    Except this contradicts A, which I agree with.

    Also, where did I say anything about stopping HIV? Don't seem to remember that. Refresh my memory please. Or were you perhaps putting words in my mouth?
    If anything, I was talking about "decreasing likelihoods", which you seem to be fond of. That being said, if legalising incest would increase the likelihood of birth defects according to your infallible logic, then surely prohibiting gay sex would have the opposite effect on the spreading of HIV?
    And if not, the point in blue comes into play, which works out for me all the same.

    Agreed completely.

    They are not necessary. They are luxury items the same way as being allowed to be in a relationship with the one you love is.
    Since any kind of extrapolation is considered '"putting words into your mouth" nowadays, I'll explain this one more carefully.
    Health risks and keeping them at bay are considered a part of an individual's well-being. Luxury such as cars and love are considered a part of one's welfare.
    By arguing that one has more benefits than the other (and by your later point of a human being having no inherent rights), what keeps me from assuming that, at least in this case, you care about well-being more than welfare?

    Exactly.

    You say "Ban 'em all" because of an increased risk of birth defects due to irresponsible couples.
    I say "Allow 'em all" because I don't want responsible couples to be treated like criminals.
    It's probably useless to play them out against each other. Honestly, if this was 3 years ago, I wouldn't even have argued your logic. But there's more to heaven and earth, PaW, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. I have found a compromise to be the healthiest solution in almost any situation, which the status-quo (incest being forbidden without a second thought) isn't.

    This is my favourite part... Reversal time (ding ding ding): should all things that are unhealthy and decrease productivity be illegal? Of course not.

    By that logic, there is no such thing as an inherent "right to live" either. This is what I mean when I say that your opinions carry implications beyond what you are saying. By saying that rights are earned, you are saying that newborns (who can't have "deserved" anything) don't have the right to live. Without inherent rights, it's survival of the fittest all around. So who is defending murder exactly? I am not putting word into your mouth; you are putting words into your mouth.
     
  13. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    Yes it does. You need to clearly link the two. The only link you're giving is that both things can cause harm by the act of sex.
    The biggest difference is that HIV affects only those accepting to have sex. Incest sex doesn't cause the harm between those having sex, only the offspring they produce. Effectively, you're gambling the offspring's chances whilst you're not affecting your own. Completely separate issues of harm.

    What? It's very unclear and ambiguous. State what you're trying to prove.
    No? I said that they'd ignore the law of no homosexual sex and still do it, this is historically proven. I also stated that if they tried to enforce the law, it would simply mean homosexuals might seek sex in a heterosexual relationship.
    They don't contradict. Humans are horny.
    I never said they were necessary, I said that cars were useful on a large, long term scale, affecting the whole of society at large, it's infrastructure, the economy, health care, etc. Incest gives the only positive of potential romance, for the individuals involved.
    You're comparing love with using a car, to wholly unrelated topics. Worse, you believe Love is a luxury. Both your applications are simplistic, they don't take in a great number of factors.
    First it depends if you believe one is somehow greater than the other. You can't have complete well being or welfare, they too easily cross with each other, more so they conflict and go against with each other. I try and go on a middle ground, trying to allow certain things but restrict others, because the middle is the best you can do for both worlds, in my view. yours will be different, and that's just the fact of it. Which of us is right or wrong, well that's never going to be provable.
    Never agreed nor denied that. Who does have the right to live?
     
  14. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    Basically, what you said for homosexuals in that fragment can be applied to incestuous couples all the same. I'm not going to explain it in detail, it's not even that hard to connect the dots.

    Except no one with a preference for the same sex is going to have heterosexual sex when other homosexuals are available. And they will consider homosexual sex to be available by ignoring the law, so they will not have heterosexual sex. Thus, the two contradict. Humans are horny but they won't go against their sexual preference so easily.

    Of course not, it was a hastily contrived argument to counter your obviously hastily contrived argument of being against the legalisation of incest because it will "increase the likelihood" of incestuous births. I've shown how dumb this sounds in other ways, so it doesn't matter whether the point is moot anyway.

    The only thing I was trying to say with that is that averting risks completely is inconceivable in a society that invests highly in welfare. Becoming more risk-prone has its benefits, or in this case, is necessary to grant couples that which should be a given.
    Love or rather a romantic relationship, although it should be a basic right, is still a luxury though. I don't think anyone who doesn't have their head in their arse would deny this.

    And ironically the analogy I completely pulled out of my ass is making you say almost the exact same thing I said in my previous post.

    Who has the right to live without birth defects? And if no one has that right, why is it unethical to allow people with birth defects to be born?
    I'm not even trying to prove anything here; I am urging you to consider your arguments more carefully. You don't seem to realize the extent of your opinions, and this shouldn't be confused with me putting words into your mouth.

    You make mistakes, but so do I. In fact I make mistakes in the vast majority of my debates, but people somehow have trouble spotting them.
    You're an intelligent opponent, and I don't admit this lightly. You are not convincing me that incest should stay illegal, and your whole idea of humans having no inherent rights is flawed as fuck, but you're making me think and reconsider and that's good. I think this debate is reaching its final stages. About time too.
     
  15. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    I'd rather you give me the details of why you see this then just use my words and replace them. They aren't your words, I might not perceive it the same way you do because i've used the words to express my own point.
    I can see some basic ideas of what you're trying to say, but it's not clear enough for me to precisely predict your ideas.

    This argument would only work in all cases if you believe that sexuality is genetic, which I do not. Too many times I've seen straight and gay alike 'experiment' with their sexuality, still stick with their sexuality yet still experiment when they're in the mood. I myself have gone through almost every sexuality in the book, and now I just don't class myself as anything, too complicated and restrictive.
    Some moments hit you, trust the person, you don't really care but just want to feel good, so sexuality doesn't matter at those moments.
    If my facts are contradictory, it's merely because humans contradict themselves in their actions and behaviour.

    This was my statement when you brought cars and car accidents in it. I had already given evidence and reason behind my argument in posts before and since posting that on why it would increase the likelihood of offspring with defects, something found in incestuous births. I was trying to point towards the health risks of it.

    You've simplified the situation of both love and cars greatly, without taking in all the facts and variables, not that I have either but at least addressed them more so.
    What benefits would this risk of allowing incest relationships even give? You have limited family, yet plenty of non familial relations to find love with. We now are in a world of over 7 billion people, and people can't find someone other then their family to fall in love with? I just don't see that as logical or even reaping any benefits for the individuals or society as a whole.
    I can list probably 10 benefits of cars, and 1-2 for incest being allowed.

    Love is a sociable, deep and even a metaphysical concept that people use in connecting deeply with each other. It's not a right, it's an innate mix of emotion and connection with reality, it's part of everyone. And everyone needs to love and at least feel cared for to some degree, we are social creatures and need this as such we crave attention, to be understood, to be cared for. It's the next closest thing to a necessity like food, water, shelter and definitely as important as health, hygiene, wealth.
    Exactly. But what I was getting at more so was why are humans important enough to inherently have rights? An animal's rights are always in question, because they aren't universal to everyone. Why are plants not given rights, they live and breath as any other living thing, yet we kill them anyway?
    Who does have the right to live, die, succeed, fail? No one, because things happen one way or the other. we have no control over things such as that. It's all human concept which in some degree is flawed. Believing we don't have rights is a flawed argument. Believing we do have rights is a flawed argument.
    All I was getting at is it's best to avoid worse case scenarios if you can.
    Debates will always be alive as long as people have beliefs they think are worth fighting about. This particular case lasts as long as we allow it.
     
  16. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    - There are birth defects in non-incestuous relationships.
    - Incestuous couples can be warned of the health risks of them procreating all the same.
    - Making incest illegal has not prevented incestuous relationships.
    - Making incest illegal will not stop birth defects.
    I can only wonder how you will weasel your way out of saying that you said the exact same thing about homosexuals and HIV. Of if you'd rather have the gist of it: legalising incest doesn't open Pandora's box. Whatever health risk increase it throws at us is not something that's completely out of our control. In fact, the difference may not even be that outspoken.

    You were about to ask "Why legalise it then?", but you ought to know by now that I already answered that.

    The scientific consensus is that sexuality is partly genetic. Sexuality has an environmentally controlling component though, but I don't see how this takes my point down. You go with whatever you prefer, and ignore that it's illegal. Again, these were your words originally, not mine. Amidst all the new age "experimenting", the vast majority of gays is still more comfortable in same-sex relationships and will not sip from another glass unless their options have whittled down considerably.

    And I was pointing out how asinine that sounds in more ways than one, the car accident thing merely being the most idiotic way of doing so.
    Minimizing risks is all fine and dandy, but when these risks can be campagined against and sensitized to, we should treat adults like adults and let them have their romance. Incestuous couples do not deserve to be scowled at by default, let alone be discriminated against in law. Making dysfunctional babies is unethical, but denying the freedom to love whatever consensual adult you fancy is too.

    Already admitted this, didn't I?

    I find it hilarious that you keep needing benefits, especially given your dreamy sidenote on love directly after this. Yes, there are enough people to love, but you don't bump into them every other day of the week. Not that that was even an argument though.
    Having feelings of love, knowing they are mutual and not being allowed to express them is a taxing ordeal in the meantime. Love brings satisfaction, satisfaction yields productiveness. This has been proven. Don't we all want people to be as productive as they can? It's a small effort to grant them this satisfaction, and the only even remotely valid reason you give for not granting this is a risk that may increase. So yes, there is a benefit even aside from not being an ass-wipe. As a matter of fact, you deny something that all incestuous couples would benefit from for a health risk in the offspring of some incestuous couples and you find this logical to boot. How high are you?
    Not to mention that not granting them the permission to express their feelings openly because it has no "benefits" is more of an insult to love than calling it a luxury will ever be.

    That's where "or rather romantic relationships" comes in, which you conveniently overlooked.

    Plot twist: humping your sister has become an existential topic.

    Seriously though, human rights are always in question as well and are not universal either: I don't think the Al-Qaeda has the same thoughts on human rights as we do. Discussing rights and ethics is perhaps an exercise in futility, but while we're at it we can at least try to strike an emotional nerve and see whether our opinions match our views on right and wrong. More importantly, we have chosen to drag ethics and morality into this discussion and we should stick with it. Putting the relevance of ethics itself into perspective by going all "Why this? Why that? Why the sun? Why the moon?" on me is the debate equivalent of a table flip when you're playing chess.

    And all I was getting at is that this is a dangerous line of thinking in its own right.

    The only reason I'm continuing this is because I am proud to a fault and because silence is often considered defeat (and on KHV, that's quite often justified). I know that I am not defeated, that I'm not a brain-dead moron and that I have valid reasons to support the legalisation of incestuous relationships. I'm also aware that at least part of our reasoning is irreconcilable and needn't be discussed further. I'm ready to put an end to this when I can make you see this, and only then.
     
  17. Menos Grande Kingdom Keeper

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2012
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    Location:
    Brazil
    161
    858
    I am also against the procriation of incestuous couple, is something imprited in us not only by genetics (even though the system in which it occurs is not clear, some suggested similar smells to exclude procriation, but that study was re made and not worked as the previous test...).
    It is true that in some degree we are biologicaly programed to not have incstuous relations, but it is not as strong as Styx is making us think, most of this aversion is cultural, a large group of civilizations supported the incest! Egyptians married sister and brothers (they thought to be gods, so It made sense to only procriate among themselves), all the european nobles and specially roayal families are deaply related! Not only european, this happens all over the world for a N number of generations, the Romanov family can be tracked by gene inversions, the case of hemophily in the europe royal families is also well know.
    relations beteween cousings isn't that avoided and are common depending on your part of the world, there are a whole number of exemples of familys that grow so incestuous that they develop some "condition" that prevents them to find mates outside their families.. here in Brazil there is a town full of midgets (or small people, what is the policaly accepted term? ) , there is others families that growns fur and are know as "werewolfs" surely it isn't a attractive trait, so inborn childreen are more common each generation.

    Than again I agree with Styx, when (s)he says that It shouldn't be up to us to stop them, people tend to bealive that when something becomes legal, it becomes obligatory.. like the people who doesn't support abortion or gay marridge, is like when its legal you're "Forced to do it", like you didn't had any will of your own to do what you want... don't worry you don't have to abort any of you child or marry that good looking guy (or girl if you're a girl) because gay marridge is legal, is only that who wants it, will not be bounded by our notions of right or wrong.. as we might as well force religion, etc..
    So I am in favor of letting people chose their relations in a moral way, but I am against the procriation in a individual way.. but by no means it will be the brick of our extinction to allow it, but can possibly make groups of "un wanted people that have no choice but to have incestuous relations" , yes it does so in a way is like forcing it in the next generations.
     
  18. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    You claim the Westermarck effect isn't "that strong", and then the examples you give are all nobility or of royal descent. For a biologist, this is an extremely unscientific argument because this isn't a representative sample. The wealth and power that stays in the family through incestuous marriage is likely to be a confounding factor. There may still be aversion (lack of attraction) but it may be counteracted by the benefits of keeping your kin in a privileged environment.
    Furthermore, claiming that the aversion is "cultural" does not preclude a genetic basis. A great deal of cultural practices originate from genetically controlled genes, at least in part. Extant hunter-gatherer populations demonstrate this to a large degree.

    That being said, I agree that blaming genetics for sexual aversion for siblings is all too easy. This wasn't my point either. My point was that incest will not become a widespread phenomenon simply by legalising it. The mechanism for preventing this doesn't matter, be it cultural or genetic. Granted, social acceptance may serve to overwrite cultural aversion eventually, but this is a long way from home for now and expecting Greek/Roman situations where we bunk with anything that moves would be blatantly ignoring the current zeitgeist.

    Midget is a politically correct term as far as I know.
     
  19. AmericanSephiroth Traverse Town Homebody

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Location:
    Loveless Ave. missing the point of it all
    15
    181
    As much as i hate to break up a good string of back and forth debate (by the way PaW and Styx you both have quite a way of sucking a reader into your posts good on ya). I would like to express my own opinion. while i am typically in the camp of strengthening the human genetic code, I am also a vehement supporter of individual rights and i believe thats so long as there is not utter harm being done to another living individual, (pro-choice i believe its only alive when its viable not a second sooner but i am against abortion every 3 seconds for horny teens "becuz they canz lul") I believe that any consenting relationship has no basis for illegality that is the point i will likely always have. for beastiality that is a similar point (consent=ok in my book) but as i have said as long as it is consented all is well and i believe that one who would see it as wrong because of some silly law or the " MAJICAL WORD OF JEEEEBUSSS who rides a skull kitted harly with gold ervry were on clouds" has some serious thinking they need to do about how others feel and how they need to be more sensitive to others emotions.


    TL;DR: if it is consented i could not care less and i believe they have a right to be happy and i hold this stance for any and all relationships