Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by BeautifulSorrow at 1:29 pm on June 4, 2008 I want to know right now, since I have seen so many topics about incest lately, what is so wrong with incest? And I'm asking you personally, I do not want the typical, "It's just so nasty!" reply, or better yet, "Because it's just wrong!" That wasn't the question: WHY is it so wrong? Society makes it out to be wrong, obviously, but I don't want society's answer, I want your answer and opinions on incest, and the reasons behind those opinions. Which is why I have decided to put this into the Intellectual Forum instead of some other Forum where a bunch of noobs will be like, "Ewwwww, you're sick for even asking this question!!!" I want mature replies, please. -- Posted by Aero360 at 1:30 pm on June 4, 2008 It increases the chances of birth defects.  Well that's one reason. -- Posted by SovSull at 1:30 pm on June 4, 2008 from the perspective of natural selection it is completely counter-intuitive to sexual reproduction since you're mingling similar genes together as opposed to grouping together more diverse ones. that would be my answer. -- Posted by BeautifulSorrow at 1:31 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from Aero360 at 1:30 pm on June 4, 2008 It increases the chances of birth defects. Well that's one reason. So? There is always a high risk of birth defect in every birth, especially if you have hereditary problems. That is also typical society, I asked for your answer, not society's. -- Posted by BeautifulSorrow at 1:32 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from SovSull at 1:30 pm on June 4, 2008 from the perspective of natural selection it is completely counter-intuitive to sexual reproduction since you're mingling similar genes together as opposed to grouping together more diverse ones. that would be my answer. The thing about that is, we are all related, in one way or another, and supposedly, we are all descended from incestual relationships. So that is also a typical society answer, not what I was looking for. Thank you any how. -- Posted by shawtys a Gx3 at 1:32 pm on June 4, 2008 Blood lines in offspring will be too close= birth defects. if you want deaf children with a few extra appendages, go ahead. -- Posted by nikki at 1:33 pm on June 4, 2008 From a physical standpoint - it highly increases the chance that the offspring would have a mental/physical defect. Otherwise - I just don't understand how you can have sexual feelings for someone in you're family like that, and for me, it's even more bizarre that people act on those impulses. HOWEVER, if the two people involved have the operations nescessary to ensure that they cannot have children, and that they are both consenting adults, I don't see why, in the eyes of the law, it should be considered illegal. -- Posted by BeautifulSorrow at 1:33 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from shawtys a Gx3 at 1:32 pm on June 4, 2008 Blood lines in offspring will be too close= birth defects. if you want deaf children with a few extra appendages, go ahead. Refer to above post and reply, this has already been said, yet another typical society answer. Please, if that's all you've got, I'm beginning to think there is nothing wrong with incest. -- Posted by BeautifulSorrow at 1:34 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 1:33 pm on June 4, 2008 From a physical standpoint - it highly increases the chance that the offspring would have a mental/physical defect. Otherwise - I just don't understand how you can have sexual feelings for someone in you're family like that, and for me, it's even more bizarre that people act on those impulses. HOWEVER, if the two people involved have the operations nescessary to ensure that they cannot have children, and that they are both consenting adults, I don't see why, in the eyes of the law, it should be considered illegal. See, this is what I was looking for. She gave me her opinion, although it had a typical society answer thrown in, it still had her opinion. And btw, in 26 states in the U.S., it is legal to marry your first cousin, so. -- Posted by SovSull at 1:35 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from BeautifulSorrow at 4:32 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from SovSull at 1:30 pm on June 4, 2008 from the perspective of natural selection it is completely counter-intuitive to sexual reproduction since you're mingling similar genes together as opposed to grouping together more diverse ones. that would be my answer. The thing about that is, we are all related, in one way or another, and supposedly, we are all descended from incestual relationships. So that is also a typical society answer, not what I was looking for. Thank you any how. my definition of incest is sexual relations between two members of the same immediate family. if your definition is between two human beings who share similar genes, then what you're asking is "what is wrong with two people being attracted to each other" -- Posted by BeautifulSorrow at 1:36 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from SovSull at 1:35 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from BeautifulSorrow at 4:32 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from SovSull at 1:30 pm on June 4, 2008 from the perspective of natural selection it is completely counter-intuitive to sexual reproduction since you're mingling similar genes together as opposed to grouping together more diverse ones. that would be my answer.    The thing about that is, we are all related, in one way or another, and supposedly, we are all descended from incestual relationships.    So that is also a typical society answer, not what I was looking for. Thank you any how. my definition of incest is sexual relations between two members of the same immediate family. if your definition is between two human beings who share similar genes, then what you're asking is "what is wrong with two people being attracted to each other" Incest is not immediate family, it is those having sexual relations who do share the same DNA, no matter how distant. Therefore, your answer is still a typical society answer. -- Posted by SovSull at 1:40 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from BeautifulSorrow at 4:32 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from SovSull at 1:30 pm on June 4, 2008 from the perspective of natural selection it is completely counter-intuitive to sexual reproduction since you're mingling similar genes together as opposed to grouping together more diverse ones. that would be my answer.   The thing about that is, we are all related, in one way or another, and supposedly, we are all descended from incestual relationships.   So that is also a typical society answer, not what I was looking for. Thank you any how. so what distinction are you trying to make? are you saying that relations between two close relatives who share a significantly large amount of dna (such as a brother and sister) are no different from relations between two people who may have had a common ancestor hundreds of generations back but are otherwise unrelated? e: clarity -- Posted by BeautifulSorrow at 1:41 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from SovSull at 1:40 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from BeautifulSorrow at 4:32 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from SovSull at 1:30 pm on June 4, 2008 from the perspective of natural selection it is completely counter-intuitive to sexual reproduction since you're mingling similar genes together as opposed to grouping together more diverse ones. that would be my answer.    The thing about that is, we are all related, in one way or another, and supposedly, we are all descended from incestual relationships.    So that is also a typical society answer, not what I was looking for. Thank you any how. so what distinction are you trying to make? are you saying that relations between two close relatives who share a significantly large amount of dna (such as a brother and sister) is no different than two people who may have had a common ancestor hundreds of generations back but are otherwise unrelated? My point is anyone up to at least 6th cousins being looked down upon society still. It should be there right and there right alone, that is my point. If two people love each other, why the hell should it matter? -- Posted by nikki at 1:49 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from BeautifulSorrow at 9:34 pm on June 4, 2008 And btw, in 26 states in the U.S., it is legal to marry your first cousin, so. Aye, I know. I think first cousins is somewhat different from sleeping with your brother/sister, or a parent. I know it still carries a risk of defects, but I think a lot of people see it as...more wrong somehow. -- Posted by BeautifulSorrow at 1:52 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 1:49 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from BeautifulSorrow at 9:34 pm on June 4, 2008 And btw, in 26 states in the U.S., it is legal to marry your first cousin, so. Aye, I know. I think first cousins is somewhat different from sleeping with your brother/sister, or a parent. I know it still carries a risk of defects, but I think a lot of people see it as...more wrong somehow. I would never try incest, but I don't look down on people who do, and I accept people for who they really are. If two people love each other, I don't see how it should matter. It's like I would never be a lesbian, but that doesn't mean I can't hang out with and be friends with lesbians, and accept them, now can I? That's my view on incest. -- Posted by nikki at 1:54 pm on June 4, 2008 I agree with you. It's nothing I could ever do myself, but I think it's a choice that people make, and if it makes them happy, then I don't understand how it's wrong. However, I think that they need to take precautions about having children (biologically, that is). I think that the risk of a birth defect is really too high in this case, but that they shouldn't be exempt from the adoption process if they're seen to be fit parents. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 4:16 pm on June 4, 2008 These are my personal views on incest. 1. I would not like to try an incestuous relationship. It does not fit my life style or personal preferences. 2. I do not believe incest should be persecuted. Under certain conditions.    a. Both parties are of legal age    b. Both parties consent    c. Both parties agree to use birth control to prevent conception and even secondary birth control in case that fails. The third may sound strict and harsh, but I do not believe that it is morally just to risk genetic deficiency in a child, and further corrupt the human gene pool because of one's sexual passion for his/her family member. 4. Though I do not disagree with one's choice to pursue incestuous relations, I see the potential for abuse, which is why I am hesitant to accept it as a practice to be considered "safe and normal".   -- Posted by allsmiles at 5:21 pm on June 4, 2008 For the record, the "increased risk of defects" is pretty much bullshit. It's only increased if you have defective genes in the first place. It has an equal chance of bringing out desirable recessive traits. I... understand society's issues with it. Society's selfish and egocentric. They need something to hate, well, several things, and anything not strictly common - ie, other than heterosexual intercourse and of late, homosexual intercourse - is a perfect target. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. As I said, it can be desirable. We do it with animals to create purebreeds. Why not with people too? -- Posted by Event Horizon at 5:25 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 5:21 pm on June 4, 2008 For the record, the "increased risk of defects" is pretty much bullshit. It's only increased if you have defective genes in the first place. It has an equal chance of bringing out desirable recessive traits. I... understand society's issues with it. Society's selfish and egocentric. They need something to hate, well, several things, and anything not strictly common - ie, other than heterosexual intercourse and of late, homosexual intercourse - is a perfect target. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. As I said, it can be desirable. We do it with animals to create purebreeds. Why not with people too? Incorrect. While it is true that one act of inbreading does not typically yield some monster of genetics, the limitations of variability in genes creates a much greater chance of undesirable traits coming to the surface. The more inbreading, the greater the chance of bad traits coming through. -- Posted by SovSull at 6:47 pm on June 4, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles I... understand society's issues with it. Society's selfish and egocentric. right, because "society" is a giant sentient being. both you  and beautifulsorrow allude to "society" when you really mean "people who think incest is disgusting." but more to the point: purebreds often run into health problems characteristic of a small gene pool. look at the cheetah: due to mass amounts of inbreeding, the species is no longer flourishing and they are endangered. i find it disturbing you promote incest as a form of eugenics. -- Posted by allsmiles at 11:13 am on June 8, 2008 Quote: from Event Horizon at 1:25 am on June 5, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 5:21 pm on June 4, 2008 For the record, the "increased risk of defects" is pretty much bullshit. It's only increased if you have defective genes in the first place. It has an equal chance of bringing out desirable recessive traits.    I... understand society's issues with it. Society's selfish and egocentric. They need something to hate, well, several things, and anything not strictly common - ie, other than heterosexual intercourse and of late, homosexual intercourse - is a perfect target.    Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. As I said, it can be desirable. We do it with animals to create purebreeds. Why not with people too? Incorrect. While it is true that one act of inbreading does not typically yield some monster of genetics, the limitations of variability in genes creates a much greater chance of undesirable traits coming to the surface. The more inbreading, the greater the chance of bad traits coming through. How does that bear relevance to a first generation, one off product of an incestuous relationship though? It's not like many outside the royals and amish (who are only running into genetic problems this past 30 years or so, about 350 years after their conception) are inbreeding for hundreds of years, and if they are, they're very much a tiny majority. Quite frankly, the reason it's considered so evil, ONE act of incest, even just consensual, protected sex, is because the big boys up top want(ed?) us to think so. SovSull, I'm sorry if you don't consider that implicit to the word. Also, note: mass amounts of inbreeding. Mass amounts of sex generally causes overpopulation, and as a consequence famine. Should we think sex disgusting also? -- Posted by roflfuckyou at 6:09 am on June 20, 2008 There is no proven study showing children who have blood related parents have a higher chance of physical/mental defects. We studied it in psychology and it's absolute rubbish. Apart from it being morally and socially wrong, as well as disgusting me, I have no problem with it. At the end of the day it is 2 consenting adults. Who tells us it is wrong? The Church of course. Christianity, God, Jesus etc. It is illegal yes, but only because of the Church. Why should we let the Church rule us, yes we see it as disgusting, and no I am not condoning incest, I am merely pointing out the fact that they are 2 perfectly normal consenting adults. -- Posted by alexmills at 8:19 am on June 20, 2008 I agree, mostly, on what has already been said. If there are two consenting adults who would like to pursue a relationship (whether related or not) they should be allowed. However, that being said, I personally disagree with incestuous couples bringing a child into the world for the sake of the child. Yes, there is a chance of defects in every birth but would you like to see your child born only to suffer from some horrible condition which causes THEM pain or suffering? On a side note, I take the same stance on gay and lesbian couples but for a different reason. Parents are a vital part of every child's development process and not having a mother or father, in most cases, would be detrimental to the child. Also take into account the amount of bullying the child would be subject to at school etc. In a perfect world, same-sex couples would be as widely accepted by society as opposite-sex couples but we don't live in a perfect world. -- Posted by xobsessedx at 1:31 pm on June 21, 2008 ... Honestly, incest isn't that big of a problem for me.  I don't approve of creating children through incest, just because of the dangers made to the child.  The number of children born through incest that have very serious disabilities is astounding. If there is proper protection or the couple is unable to create children, I will never condemn any incestuous couple-- to their faces.  I can not help how I was raised. I think the reason why so many people and families, including my own, have a problem with incest is that it takes away something that is sacred.  Incest allows relationships that are cultivated to be purely paternal and supportive to become sexual-- possibly creating awkwardness and gaps within the family.  Especially in cultures where families are very close, this is unacceptable. -- Posted by The Artful Dodger at 5:51 pm on June 29, 2008 It's unnatural and stagnates the human gene pool. In fact I would go so far as to say it's natural to be repulsed by it. -- Posted by iinsurgent at 6:38 pm on June 29, 2008 Quote: from Event Horizon at 4:16 pm on June 4, 2008 The third may sound strict and harsh, but I do not believe that it is morally just to risk genetic deficiency in a child, and further corrupt the human gene pool because of one's sexual passion for his/her family member. This isn't just directed at you, but everyone else who included this as an example. What about couples who are high risk for genetic diseases? Would you apply this to them as well, why or why not? -- Posted by MotoMojo at 5:48 am on July 2, 2008 >>Incest is not immediate family, it is those having sexual relations who do share the same DNA, no matter how distant. Therefore, your answer is still a typical society answer.<< Considering that ALL humans are something like 99% genetically similar, I share "the same DNA" with everyone. Therefore, any sexual relationship I have, by your standards, would be considered to be an incestual one. -- Posted by lucynthesky at 7:37 pm on July 3, 2008 Other than the risk of birth defects, I think that incest is wrong because you are supposed to have a connection to your family, buy when you have that kind of relationship with a member of your family then it just isn't natural. You are supposed to love your family so if you go screw your father, brother, grandfather, or even your uncle earl then it is like you misunderstood the natural love you have for family with love that you find in a person you didn't grow up with. -- Posted by iinsurgent at 9:16 am on July 5, 2008 Quote: from iinsurgent at 6:38 pm on June 29, 2008 Quote: from Event Horizon at 4:16 pm on June 4, 2008  The third may sound strict and harsh, but I do not believe that it is morally just to risk genetic deficiency in a child, and further corrupt the human gene pool because of one's sexual passion for his/her family member.   This isn't just directed at you, but everyone else who included this as an example. What about couples who are high risk for genetic diseases? Would you apply this to them as well, why or why not? I too would like to know what people have to say about this   -- Posted by iBritt at 9:28 am on July 5, 2008 What the hell is with this "typical society answer" shit? I mean, if you already had the answer in your mind, why even ask the question? Pages: 1 2  Next