Anyone for G@y Marriage but against Incest?

This has come up before in some gay marriage topics. Is anyone okay with same sex marriage but against incest? If so, please explain your reasoning. I personally have found nothing wrong with incest. I do not particpate in it, nor homosexuality, but I feel consenting adults should be able to be with whoever they want.

Don't believe what you see in the movies with all the deformed babies, Movieland loves to exagerrate things. An Incestuous couple has a 50% higher chance of having defects. Thats 50% higher not 50% more. That means if normal couples have a 2% chance, than an incest couple has a 3% chance. I really Do not see the big deal, there are plenty of straight couples who have 25% chance of giving defects such as Cystic fibrosis, colourblindness, sickle cell anemia, etc.

I think all consentual forms of marriage should be legal, gay lesbian, poly. (Please remember i am referring to consentual relationships, not some father taking advantage of his 12 year old daughter)

Because sleeping with your family is just gross and the higher percentage of birth defects is an issue. Its like cancer. Just because you have a shot at cancer no matter what is no excuse to start smoking. Besides inbreeding is bad for genetics.....and gross.mattykovax

Seriously? Whan has this ever come up? Incest? Dude?

Its wrong. Im sorry like it or not you have to draw a line somewhere and one line is sleeping with imediate family. If you do not understand why that is morally reprehensible I am sorry,but its on the list of stuff you just dont do.

I'm pretty sure that it's actually approximately 25% chance of expressing deleterious recessive alleles, regardless of rarity of the allele.

Edit: I'll try to find the notes I have to explain.

Edit 2: Good lord, I have terrible notes. I think it breaks down to this:

Two parents mate and produce offspring. These full siblings mate to produce a child. What is the probability of that child expressing the undesirable trait? (homozygous recessive due to autozygosity. If the trait were dominant then the probability would be even higher, since the child would then only require one dominant allele).

The formula comes from the inbreeding coefficient (F). F = Sum of (1/2)^n from i = 1 to k, where n = number of individuals common to the child (excluding the child) and k = number different paths of common ancestry.

I am against incest due to the defective offspring that would result from an incest relationship, and in the case where the two relatives have grown up together and was apparent that they were relatives.

The second reason is due to the fact that incest overrides the default relationship which is one between relatives. If though the relatives never knew each other (as relatives), then emotionally there is no turmoil or confusion since they even if they find out that they are relatives (siblings etc) there was no "default" relationship between them and therefore nothing got distorted.

...if that makes sense. I cant really explain it.

I am against incest due to the defective offspring that would result from an incest relationship, and in the case where the two relatives have grown up together and was apparent that they were relatives.

The second reason is due to the fact that incest overrides the default relationship which is one between relatives. If though the relatives never knew each other (as relatives), then emotionally there is no turmoil or confusion since they even if they find out that they are relatives (siblings etc) there was no "default" relationship between them and therefore nothing got distorted.

...if that makes sense. I cant really explain it.

I am against incest due to the defective offspring that would result from an incest relationship, and in the case where the two relatives have grown up together and was apparent that they were relatives.

The second reason is due to the fact that incest overrides the default relationship which is one between relatives. If though the relatives never knew each other (as relatives), then emotionally there is no turmoil or confusion since they even if they find out that they are relatives (siblings etc) there was no "default" relationship between them and therefore nothing got distorted.

...if that makes sense. I cant really explain it.

This has come up before in some gay marriage topics. Is anyone okay with same sex marriage but against incest? If so, please explain your reasoning. I personally have found nothing wrong with incest. I do not particpate in it, nor homosexuality, but I feel consenting adults should be able to be with whoever they want.

Don't believe what you see in the movies with all the deformed babies, Movieland loves to exagerrate things. An Incestuous couple has a 50% higher chance of having defects. Thats 50% higher not 50% more. That means if normal couples have a 2% chance, than an incest couple has a 3% chance. I really Do not see the big deal, there are plenty of straight couples who have 25% chance of giving defects such as Cystic fibrosis, colourblindness, sickle cell anemia, etc.

I think all consentual forms of marriage should be legal, gay lesbian, poly. (Please remember i am referring to consentual relationships, not some father taking advantage of his 12 year old daughter)

STAR_Admiral

I am against incest due to the defective offspring that would result from an incest relationship, and in the case where the two relatives have grown up together and was apparent that they were relatives.

The second reason is due to the fact that incest overrides the default relationship which is one between relatives. If though the relatives never knew each other (as relatives), then emotionally there is no turmoil or confusion since they even if they find out that they are relatives (siblings etc) there was no "default" relationship between them and therefore nothing got distorted.

...if that makes sense. I cant really explain it.

Teenaged

Incest laws are the same though regardless of whether an individual grows up with his siblings or had no knowledge of them until his adult years.

The chances of defects within incenstuous relationships are actually rather small for a first-generation coupling. It is when subsequent generations within a family unit marry within their family in an unbroken chain that the risk rises. Still, like homosexuality, relationships do not only exist for the sake of having children.

Finally, the distorted view of the sibling relationship would be more of an individual thing in those cases. I personally find the idea completely disgusting, but I couldn't honestly support the use of legal action or Government force to prevent two adults who were in love from coupling simply over a separate genetic bond. I could probably entertain a legal abstinance from having children, but that's as far as I could go.

I can see why it might seem to be a thinly veiled attack on homosexuality, and heck who knows, it might be. But this is a question I havebeen pondering for a while myself,and I certainly never did it with the intent of bashing homosexual relationships.

So I think the question is a legitimateone and deserves some form of debate. I'm just not sure this is the forum for that debate, given the minimum age is so low.

Seriously? Whan has this ever come up? Incest? Dude?

drufeous

It actually comes up quite a bit for siblings and half-siblings who meet for the first time later in life. There is a well known psychological condition called "Genetic Sexual Attraction" which has been in the spotlight recentlydue to its perceived prevalance, in which siblings whonever formed the natural dissuasion to attraction to another sibling that comes with being raised together find themselves attracted to the similar genetic traits when they do meet for the first time.

Why are the two being compared, they are completely unrelated.

sure.

How can you even compare the 2? :? Eddie5vs1

Why are the two being compared, they are completely unrelated.lil_zelda_dude

I don't believe they are so unrelated in terms of the ethical questions involved. I believe he is asking for an ethical comparison. Homosexuality has become more accepted as individuals in society have realized that as a relationship between two consenting adults, there is really nothing at all wrong with it.

So the question is, for those who believe incest among consenting adults should be banned from human relationships, what are the factors that make the relationship more objectionable from an ethical standpoint than other historically objectionable relationships that are now well accepted, such as homosexual relationships.

For one, I think the argument that it could affect offspring negatively is the only really compelling argument. That it is "disgusting" isn't really interesting or complelling to me as a reason. It's an aesthetic judgement in those cases, one that doesn't really answer the question. People think things like this are disgusting for different reasons. Some might just have a visceral reaction, while others might have formed that view from other root ideas such as strong ethical objections. The root ethical objections are the only ones that should really be important in determining if adult consensual incest should (contineu to) be banned from human relationships.

How can you even compare the 2? :? Eddie5vs1

Why are the two being compared, they are completely unrelated.lil_zelda_dude

Lmao and yet topics about Gay and incest are allowed and when someone accidentally puts a thread in the wrong section mods go berserk :) Gotta love mod mentalitylil_zelda_dude

[QUOTE="Eddie5vs1"]How can you even compare the 2? :? m0zart

Why are the two being compared, they are completely unrelated.lil_zelda_dude

I don't believe they are so unrelated in terms of the ethical questions involved. I believe he is asking for an ethical comparison. Homosexuality has become more accepted as individuals in society have realized that as a relationship between two consenting adults, there is really nothing at all wrong with it.

So the question is, for those who believe incest among consenting adults should be banned from human relationships, what are the factors that make the relationship more objectionable from an ethical standpoint than other historically objectionable relationships that are now well accepted, such as homosexual relationships.

For one, I think the argument that it could affect offspring negatively is the only really compelling argument. That it is "disgusting" isn't really interesting or complelling to me as a reason. It's an aesthetic judgement in those cases, one that doesn't really answer the question. People think things like this are disgusting for different reasons. Some might just have a visceral reaction, while others might have formed that view from other root ideas such as strong ethical objections. The root ethical objections are the only ones that should really be important in determining if adult consensual incest should (contineu to) be banned from human relationships.

[QUOTE="Eddie5vs1"]How can you even compare the 2? :? m0zart

Why are the two being compared, they are completely unrelated.lil_zelda_dude

I don't believe they are so unrelated in terms of the ethical questions involved. I believe he is asking for an ethical comparison. Homosexuality has become more accepted as individuals in society have realized that as a relationship between two consenting adults, there is really nothing at all wrong with it.

So the question is, for those who believe incest among consenting adults should be banned from human relationships, what are the factors that make the relationship more objectionable from an ethical standpoint than other historically objectionable relationships that are now well accepted, such as homosexual relationships.

For one, I think the argument that it could affect offspring negatively is the only really compelling argument. That it is "disgusting" isn't really interesting or complelling to me as a reason. It's an aesthetic judgement in those cases, one that doesn't really answer the question. People think things like this are disgusting for different reasons. Some might just have a visceral reaction, while others might have formed that view from other root ideas such as strong ethical objections. The root ethical objections are the only ones that should really be important in determining if adult consensual incest should (contineu to) be banned from human relationships.

Children born through incest have an extremely high chance of being born with severe defects due to the gene pool not being able to expand.

There is no proven medical reprecussions from homosexuality apart from heightened risk of getting STD's through unprotected sex.

This isn't a moral argument, more of a medical argument.

For one, I think the argument that it could affect offspring negatively is the only really compelling argument. That it is "disgusting" isn't really interesting or complelling to me as a reason. It's an aesthetic judgement in those cases, one that doesn't really answer the question. People think things like this are disgusting for different reasons. Some might just have a visceral reaction, while others might have formed that view from other root ideas such as strong ethical objections. The root ethical objections are the only ones that should really be important in determining if adult consensual incest should (contineu to) be banned from human relationships.m0zart

I never thought about that before but i guess your right. The idea that people should be allowed to be with whoever they want should extend further than just gay people but to anyone.

So i guess on that i am for incest, even though i find it hard to get my head around why someone would date there family member but im not against it.

Thank you TC, its been a long time that ive actually had to think about a topic in GS and come to an opinion that i hadnt thought of before :)

Children born through incest have an extremely high chance of being born with severe defects due to the gene pool not being able to expand.

There is no proven medical reprecussions from homosexuality apart from heightened risk of getting STD's through unprotected sex.

This isn't a moral argument, more of a medical argument.

Isbrealiompie

I actually don't agree with you there. It's still an ethical argument. If children born through incestual relationships are indeed at a much higher risk, then the objection would be that exposing children to that risk would be unfair to those children, even a violation of them in some sense, which is entirely in the realm of ethics.

However, I am not convinced that first-generation incest produces that sort of risk. The risk is only minimally higher until "inbreeding" becomes multi-generational.

Lol people made fun of my argument against gay marriage as a "slippery slope fallacy" when I stated that the event of legalizing gay marriage doesn't automatically lead to other types of taboo relationships (such as incestual) but puts people in a mind set to accept it. Bam, I was right. There is no point in arguing here. There is no debate. Once you accept the premise that love=sexual relationship bar nothing, then you have put yourself in a position to accept anything. "Gross" doesn't count. "Gross" can be overcome. It was overcome with homosexuality (which, in my opinion, is extremely "gross"), and it will be overcome here. So TC, don't worry, as states legalize gay marriage, they will ask the same question you asked yourself, and everything will follow from there.

Children born through incest have an extremely high chance of being born with severe defects due to the gene pool not being able to expand.

There is no proven medical reprecussions from homosexuality apart from heightened risk of getting STD's through unprotected sex.

This isn't a moral argument, more of a medical argument.

I guess I associate incest more with parents molesting their children, not two consenting adults.Eddie5vs1

Yes, and that is part of the problem with the word being used commonly for parent-to-child molestation and sexual assault. Children are not capable of consenting to sexual relationships, regardless of what they are. It wouldn't matter if it were within the family or outside of the family, a sexual activity performed by an adult with a child is inappropriate and morally obectionable either way.

Lol people made fun of my argument against gay marriage as a "slippery slope fallacy" when I stated that the event of legalizing gay marriage doesn't automatically lead to other types of taboo relationships (such as incestual) but puts people in a mind set to accept it. Bam, I was right. There is no point in arguing here. There is no debate. Once you accept the premise that love=sexual relationship bar nothing, then you have put yourself in a position to accept anything. "Gross" doesn't count. "Gross" can be overcome. It was overcome with homosexuality (which, in my opinion, is extremely "gross"), and it will be overcome here. So TC, don't worry, as states legalize gay marriage, they will ask the same question you asked yourself, and everything will follow from there.

peter1191

One more thing: the chances of defects are tiny even in incestual relations. Its only a rumor propagated by what has happened to several European families. In reality, almost 10 percent of the human population is defective in some way. Incest will not increase this number significantly. No, the only way to avoid such taboos is to reject them outright as bad socially to any society. Too bad people will not follow this train of thought.

When I say high chance, I mean higher chance than normal. I remember seeing some article (dont ask me to link it though, it was a while back), that said the chance of severe birth defects with children born through incest was something like 7-8%. I know that may not seem high but it is in retrospect to children born normally.

Children born through incest have an extremely high chance of being born with severe defects due to the gene pool not being able to expand.

There is no proven medical reprecussions from homosexuality apart from heightened risk of getting STD's through unprotected sex.

This isn't a moral argument, more of a medical argument.

I think they are both wrong, but whatever.

[QUOTE="Eddie5vs1"]I guess I associate incest more with parents molesting their children, not two consenting adults.m0zart

Yes, and that is part of the problem with the word being used commonly for parent-to-child molestation and sexual assault. Children are not capable of consenting to sexual relationships, regardless of what they are. It wouldn't matter if it were within the family or outside of the family, a sexual activity performed by an adult with a child is inappropriate and morally obectionable either way.

One more thing: the chances of defects are tiny even in incestual relations. Its only a rumor propagated by what has happened to several European families. In reality, almost 10 percent of the human population is defective in some way. Incest will not increase this number significantly. No, the only way to avoid such taboos is to reject them outright as bad socially to any society. Too bad people will not follow this train of thought.peter1191

[QUOTE="peter1191"]One more thing: the chances of defects are tiny even in incestual relations. Its only a rumor propagated by what has happened to several European families. In reality, almost 10 percent of the human population is defective in some way. Incest will not increase this number significantly. No, the only way to avoid such taboos is to reject them outright as bad socially to any society. Too bad people will not follow this train of thought.Eddie5vs1

[QUOTE="peter1191"]One more thing: the chances of defects are tiny even in incestual relations. Its only a rumor propagated by what has happened to several European families. In reality, almost 10 percent of the human population is defective in some way. Incest will not increase this number significantly. No, the only way to avoid such taboos is to reject them outright as bad socially to any society. Too bad people will not follow this train of thought.Eddie5vs1

You are right, but also understand that if incest was legal then people could chose between a father/mother/brother/sister and others, so there is no need to limit the gene pool, only a choice. Therefore such a legalization will not damage the population so much genetically as socially.

[QUOTE="mattykovax"]Because sleeping with your family is just gross and the higher percentage of birth defects is an issue. Its like cancer. Just because you have a shot at cancer no matter what is no excuse to start smoking. Besides inbreeding is bad for genetics.....and gross.STAR_Admiral

I think it's safe to say the intentions of this thread are somewhat suspect given your rationale in this post.

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"][QUOTE="mattykovax"]Because sleeping with your family is just gross and the higher percentage of birth defects is an issue. Its like cancer. Just because you have a shot at cancer no matter what is no excuse to start smoking. Besides inbreeding is bad for genetics.....and gross.Leejjohno

I think it's safe to say the intentions of this thread are somewhat suspect given your rationale in this post.

This is ethical hypocrisy of the highest order. One cannot logically accept homosexuality whilst condemning incestuous relationships. As for you guys talking about the deformities resulting from incestual reproduction, either the male or the female can easily become infertile by choice. The great irony here, is that one is so quick to condemn the homophobes for what they see as gross (which is very understandable, don't get me wrong, I think homophobia is irrational), yet they themselves invoke this 'grossness' factor to comden incestuous relationships. Double standards?MetalGear_Ninty

^This. If you people say it's fine for people to deviate from the traditional man and women relationships, then you better be prepared to support dudes who want to have sex with other dudes AS WELL as dudes who like to have sex with their sisters/brothers/cousins/etc. If you support one without supporting the other, you are a hypocrite.

Alright let me clear something up folks NOT everyone who has sex with a family member is gonna have a kid thats gonna have defects. We are all inbreds so whats the big deal? :lol: This was very common for our ancestors! But I do not agree with it and I do find it kinda disgusting.

[QUOTE="Eddie5vs1"][QUOTE="peter1191"]One more thing: the chances of defects are tiny even in incestual relations. Its only a rumor propagated by what has happened to several European families. In reality, almost 10 percent of the human population is defective in some way. Incest will not increase this number significantly. No, the only way to avoid such taboos is to reject them outright as bad socially to any society. Too bad people will not follow this train of thought.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]This is ethical hypocrisy of the highest order. One cannot logically accept homosexuality whilst condemning incestuous relationships. As for you guys talking about the deformities resulting from incestual reproduction, either the male or the female can easily become infertile by choice. The great irony here, is that one is so quick to condemn the homophobes for what they see as gross (which is very understandable, don't get me wrong, I think homophobia is irrational), yet they themselves invoke this 'grossness' factor to comden incestuous relationships. Double standards?agilefalcon16

^This. If you people say it's fine for people to deviate from the traditional man and women relationships, then you better be prepared to support dudes who want to have sex with other dudes AS WELL as dudes who like to have sex with their sisters/brothers/cousins/etc. If you support one without supporting the other, you are a hypocrite.

[QUOTE="agilefalcon16"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]This is ethical hypocrisy of the highest order. One cannot logically accept homosexuality whilst condemning incestuous relationships. As for you guys talking about the deformities resulting from incestual reproduction, either the male or the female can easily become infertile by choice. The great irony here, is that one is so quick to condemn the homophobes for what they see as gross (which is very understandable, don't get me wrong, I think homophobia is irrational), yet they themselves invoke this 'grossness' factor to comden incestuous relationships. Double standards?mattykovax

^This. If you people say it's fine for people to deviate from the traditional man and women relationships, then you better be prepared to support dudes who want to have sex with other dudes AS WELL as dudes who like to have sex with their sisters/brothers/cousins/etc. If you support one without supporting the other, you are a hypocrite.