Anyone for G@y Marriage but against Incest?

[QUOTE="mattykovax"]I would say its instinctive. While I would never sleep with another man and find it gross on a personal physical level I have no internal compass telling me its wrong. Yet to think of incest and to the core of my being it just screams out as something you dont do,like murder.m0zart

I actually do also have a prohibitive instinctagainstmurder, but as an adult, the main reason I hold that murder is wrong is because I see that it is obviously unethical/immoral to take the life of another human being in normal circumstances (i.e. outside of self-defense). If murder didn't involve the taking of innocent life, I wouldn't be able to use that as an objection and may not be able to justify it as a crime.

And the same situation applies here. The reaction I have to incest is purely visceral, but that's not enough to justify bans. Besides that,it seems that the "instinctive" deterrantagainst incest is a learned behavior, in that wedevelop the deterrance to attraction with thosewe are raised with and/or by. In most cases, adopted children who are raised together have the same instictive deterrance depsite the fact that they are not genetically similar. And in certain types of arranged marriages in which the betrothed are raised in the same communal family, there is also a strong abhorrence developed to sexual activity, which has resulted in a reduced population among those who practice it.

But in cases where genetically related individuals were raised apart and did not meet until adult years, the instictive abhorrence doesn't quite exist in many cases. Besides that though, just the existence of a certain visceral abhorrence to the activity isn't enough to make that decision for everyone else, universally, under penalty of law. At least, it isn't from my perspective.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

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.

m0zart

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.

And yes I know its not 100% sure that children will be born with defects (wasnt sure about what the percentage is though).

Yes it is a personal issue but I used it as a parametre that gives meaning to the distinction of the two relatives knowing they are relatives all their lives and them not having a clue. That would be, say, a criterion that tries to define "normality" in the psychological aspect.

Yes I would agree with that too.

Nah I just think he wants to call out on the supposed hypocrisy of people (homosexual or not) who support homosexuality but not incest.

Well, I dont profess that the reasons why incest is "bad" are absolute, but I wont agree the two (homosexuality and incest) being lumped together as if they are the same or successfuly comparable. I think they have major differences.

Well, I dont profess that the reasons why incest is "bad" are absolute, but I wont agree the two (homosexuality and incest) being lumped together as if they are the same or successfuly comparable. I think they have major differences.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="mattykovax"]I would say its instinctive. While I would never sleep with another man and find it gross on a personal physical level I have no internal compass telling me its wrong. Yet to think of incest and to the core of my being it just screams out as something you dont do,like murder.mattykovax

I actually do also have a prohibitive instinctagainstmurder, but as an adult, the main reason I hold that murder is wrong is because I see that it is obviously unethical/immoral to take the life of another human being in normal circumstances (i.e. outside of self-defense). If murder didn't involve the taking of innocent life, I wouldn't be able to use that as an objection and may not be able to justify it as a crime.

And the same situation applies here. The reaction I have to incest is purely visceral, but that's not enough to justify bans. Besides that,it seems that the "instinctive" deterrantagainst incest is a learned behavior, in that wedevelop the deterrance to attraction with thosewe are raised with and/or by. In most cases, adopted children who are raised together have the same instictive deterrance depsite the fact that they are not genetically similar. And in certain types of arranged marriages in which the betrothed are raised in the same communal family, there is also a strong abhorrence developed to sexual activity, which has resulted in a reduced population among those who practice it.

But in cases where genetically related individuals were raised apart and did not meet until adult years, the instictive abhorrence doesn't quite exist in many cases. Besides that though, just the existence of a certain visceral abhorrence to the activity isn't enough to make that decision for everyone else, universally, under penalty of law. At least, it isn't from my perspective.

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

If the incestuous relationship involved two individuals within the same immediate family and both are of legal age, have reached consensus about it (assuming they are both mentally capable) and no children will be produce as a result of the relationship, on moral ground I have yet to think of a good reason to forbid such act. Strictly speaking, engaging in extramarital affairs are every bit as morally reprehensible as homosexuality or incest according to some with strong senses of morality, yet it is still happening at quite an alarming rate and, in some cases, could be consider as an "accomplishment" worthy of boasting among friends. It can be said that extramarital affairs do not carry as much of a stigma comparing to homosexuality and incest, although people are gradually becoming more accepting toward homosexual in time (p. 2-3).

At the same time I can imagine the chaos it would create within the immediate family and to the relatives if incest relationship were to become legal. Especially within some cultures where family ties are strong and familial bonds are regard highly. Within such culture where the senior members of the family are literally treated as the patriarch or matriarch and everything they say and do will be honor within the family and are allowed by the culture. In such setting even if the younger member are of legal age to choose it'd be hard press for some of them to go against the wish of the elders and risk being rejected by the entire family.

Furthermore if such relationship were to be judge on a biological basis and the argument being that the chances of it producing off springs with higher rate of abnormalities, then on that same token should we also outlaw people with disability to mate? If they have disability it is apparent they carry genes that could be pass on to their children, therefore we should prevent their potentially imperfect DNA to survive. While we are at it, why don't we ban women of older age to have children as well? I have read many studies regarding women giving birth at high age could be detrimental to the health for both the mother and the children.

With that said, however, I still cannot say at this point in time that I endorse incest... perhaps I am still conditioned to believe that it is very "wrong" by the greater society. I merely find the argument against it from a biological and moral standpoint to be quite... weak, to say the least.

I'm not against incest (*gasp*). You can't control who you are attracted to, and if two consenting adults love each other then I just don't see why it should be my buisness.

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

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

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.

John_A_Zoidberg

But to my perception, a relationship between relatives (love between siblings, love of mother and child) is not compatible with the relationship of lovers.

Of course incest itself shows how people have managed to go from one to the other, I know that.

Bottomline is I wouldnt be an activist against that issue (like some people may be against homosexuality - I know how irrational that is first-hand). Its just the way I can rationalise it and "tolerate" it (tolerate it in cases where the relatives didnt grow up together, had no default relationship as relatives or never knew each other). Sucks to hear myself say that considering what I am but... *sigh*

And thats why I dont take a solid and rigid stance on the issue.

I'm not against incest (*gasp*). You can't control who you are attracted to, and if two consenting adults love each other then I just don't see why it should be my buisness.

Pixel-Pirate

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I'm not against incest (*gasp*). You can't control who you are attracted to, and if two consenting adults love each other then I just don't see why it should be my buisness.

Tjeremiah1988

the genetics behind incest:

Parent + Child = 50% chance of passing on any genetic disorders (since they share 50% of genetic material)
Brother + Sister = 25% chance of passing on any genetic disorders (since they share 25% of their genetic material)
1st cousin = 12.5% chance of passing on any genetic disorders

That's not an increased chance either. That's the probability, period. Obviously a disorder has to exist in your family's gene pool in order for your offspring to have any chance of getting it, which is why if you go by purely epidemiological figures the increased probability of having a really messed up baby seems small. However, any genetic disorders that are contained in your gene pool have a ridiculously high chance of showing up if you and a family member produce offspring.

these two are not really comparable in my mind

Gay Marriage: Okay

Incest: Not Okay. Seriously wtf. If you want to turn Earth into a Hick Planet then be my guest.

the genetics behind incest:

Parent + Child = 50% chance of passing on any genetic disorders (since they share 50% of genetic material)
Brother + Sister = 25% chance of passing on any genetic disorders (since they share 25% of their genetic material)
1st cousin = 12.5% chance of passing on any genetic disorders

That's not an increased chance either. That's the probability, period. Obviously a disorder has to exist in your family's gene pool in order for your offspring to have any chance of getting it, which is why if you go by purely epidemiological figures the increased probability of having a really messed up baby seems small. However, any genetic disorders that are contained in your gene pool have a ridiculously high chance of showing up if you and a family member produce offspring.

gameguy6700

Even so, two UNRELATED people who are heterozygous recessive for something like sickle cell anemia, have a 25% chance of having a kid with sickle cell anemia. 50% if one of the parents actually HAS sickle cell anemia.

There are all sorts of genetic diseases that unrelated couples have a higher-than-normal chance of passing on to their children, but how often is that used to actually justify not letting them get married?

I still see sort of a double standard.

I find it funny that people are freaking out over incest saying it's gross, yet alot of people would say the same about gays....also their are condoms and birth control now so incest shouldn't be a problem with people if they support gay marriage and the like

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I'm not against incest (*gasp*). You can't control who you are attracted to, and if two consenting adults love each other then I just don't see why it should be my buisness.

Tjeremiah1988

If they develop a romantic style love and have sex I really don't see why it is my buisness to say they shouldn't if it is 100% consensual.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

the genetics behind incest:

Parent + Child = 50% chance of passing on any genetic disorders (since they share 50% of genetic material)
Brother + Sister = 25% chance of passing on any genetic disorders (since they share 25% of their genetic material)
1st cousin = 12.5% chance of passing on any genetic disorders

That's not an increased chance either. That's the probability, period. Obviously a disorder has to exist in your family's gene pool in order for your offspring to have any chance of getting it, which is why if you go by purely epidemiological figures the increased probability of having a really messed up baby seems small. However, any genetic disorders that are contained in your gene pool have a ridiculously high chance of showing up if you and a family member produce offspring.

MrGeezer

Even so, two UNRELATED people who are heterozygous recessive for something like sickle cell anemia, have a 25% chance of having a kid with sickle cell anemia. 50% if one of the parents actually HAS sickle cell anemia.

There are all sorts of genetic diseases that unrelated couples have a higher-than-normal chance of passing on to their children, but how often is that used to actually justify not letting them get married?

I still see sort of a double standard.

That's completely true, and there is a bioethical debate about that. That said, some diseases are screened for in couples and if found the couple is advised to not have children.

That's completely true, and there is a bioethical debate about that. That said, some diseases are screened for in couples and if found the couple is advised to not have children.

gameguy6700

Correct, but are they typically PROHIBITED from having children? If they both know from the beginning that they carry the genes for these kinds of traits, are they typically prohibited from getting married? Are couples forced to get pre-marital screening for common genetic diseases in order to ensure that the kids don't get hurt?

It'd be one thing to ADVISE two siblings from getting married, or to STRONGLY CAUTION THEM against it, or even to strongly recommend that one or the other gets sterilized in order to keep from having kids. But KEEPING them from getting married because of defects that they MIGHT pass onto their kids is a bit different. We coupld do that with heterosexual couples if we really wanted to, but we don't. And I don't think many people would support doing that with heterosexual couples. Most people would say "let them get married if they love each other, and trust that they'll make the right choice when it comes to being parents". Why couldn't the same thing apply to siblings or cousins?

I think that what hasn't been brought up yet is that incest being immoral is a social value for a reason, it wasn't completely arbitrary. The idea is one to promote genetic diversity and two to prevent competition from being a major issue. Now we're smart enough, hopefully, to not let constant inbreeding ruin our genepool and there are enough people on this Earth so that sexual competition isn't that much of an issue, but completely undoing those norms would upset a social structure that has existed in pretty much the same manner for millenia, and is there any real benefit behind this? Not really. Now should it be legislated, I wonder. Just wikied it and some of the laws sound absurd. For instance, in Hawaii you can be jailed for up to five years for having sex with an in-law. I'd almost like to know what effect these laws are having on the general population, for instance in Jersey there are no legal penalties for consenting adults, I'd like to know if in-breeding is exceptionally high there. Personally, I almost feel like social norms should be enough of a deterrant. you might get those who buck the trend, but I would think it would be a tremendous minority.

my views on this topic are the same as my views on any other topic of this nature. I believe in unlimited personal freedom. If both parties are consenting then i dont care who they are. If i were to bring up the genetic disability card then why restrict it to incest couples? What about disabled people, i mean surely they have a higher chance to pass it on, shall we castrate disabled people? I personally dont like incest relationships nor do i like gay relationships but if its what makes you happy then more power to you.

I think that what hasn't been brought up yet is that incest being immoral is a social value for a reason, it wasn't completely arbitrary. The idea is one to promote genetic diversity and two to prevent competition from being a major issue. Now we're smart enough, hopefully, to not let constant inbreeding ruin our genepool and there are enough people on this Earth so that sexual competition isn't that much of an issue, but completely undoing those norms would upset a social structure that has existed in pretty much the same manner for millenia, and is there any real benefit behind this? Not really. Now should it be legislated, I wonder. Just wikied it and some of the laws sound absurd. For instance, in Hawaii you can be jailed for up to five years for having sex with an in-law. I'd almost like to know what effect these laws are having on the general population, for instance in Jersey there are no legal penalties for consenting adults, I'd like to know if in-breeding is exceptionally high there. Personally, I almost feel like social norms should be enough of a deterrant. you might get those who buck the trend, but I would think it would be a tremendous minority.

theone86

But in all fairness, there very well be a similar reason for people thinking that homosexuality is just plain "wrong".

Sure, early in our prehistory, incest would have led to decreased biodiversity. Which is bad. Sure, given the smaller sizes of social groups, genetic defects would have propagated more quickly. Which is bad. But does that have any relevence to TODAY?

Early on, having kids were a valuable RESOURCE. It wasn't just important for YOU to have kids to help you out. It was important for the whole GROUP to produce more kids. If two dudes decided to get together and form a monogamous non-child-bearing relationship instead of pairing up with women and producing more kids to benefit the entire group, that's likely BAD. But again, how much relevance does that have to TODAY?

There are probably LOTS of weird and presumably illogical morals that have their roots in the early days of humanity. The thing is, the whole structure of society back then is probably so very different from that of society today, that those moral artifacts may or may not have any modern relevance. Consider that society and technology exploded EXTREMELY quickly. We went from hunter-gatherers to nuclear weapons and interplanetary space travel in the goddamn blink of an eye. Society and technology may be changing so goddamn fast that our biology simply can't keep up with the changes.

my views on this topic are the same as my views on any other topic of this nature. I believe in unlimited personal freedom. If both parties are consenting then i dont care who they are. If i were to bring up the genetic disability card then why restrict it to incest couples? What about disabled people, i mean surely they have a higher chance to pass it on, shall we castrate disabled people? I personally dont like incest relationships nor do i like gay relationships but if its what makes you happy then more power to you.

Thessassin

This. Why do we restrict freedom in a so-called free world if no conseting adults are hurt in the process?

I'm obviously for gay marriage. All for it. But incest? Really? Come on. *vomit*perphekt

The thing is, this is similar to what someone would say about homosexuality.

"It's disgusting to me, thus it is wrong."

as far as gay marriage goes i don't knock others for what they do but incest? why in the hell would you want to lay down with a member of you family? thats just not right and people that indulge in that are sick in the head

as far as incest goes i don't knock others for what they do but homosexual realtions? why in the hell would you want to lay down with a member of the same sex? thats just not right and people that indulge in that are sick in the head

as far as gay marriage goes i don't knock others for what they do but incest? why in the hell would you want to lay down with a member of you family? thats just not right and people that indulge in that are sick in the head

RadTad62

as far as incest goes i don't knock others for what they do but homosexual realtions? why in the hell would you want to lay down with a member of the same sex? thats just not right and people that indulge in that are sick in the head

Mafiree

o_O

Ok, well, you go bone your brother or sister. =) I'll just keep to my lesbianism. perphekt

No thank you. My sister is ugly and has a personality comparable to Adolf Hitler.

Incest? C'mon, just because it was practiced generations ago...Although it wouldn't surprise me if other countries practice stuff like polygamy, incest, and bestiality.viewtiful26

I have a few friends who are polygmous. I don't see the hate leveled toward it unless we're strictly talking man has 800 wives and treats them all as slaves.

I don't care what they do as long as its not in my face.I'm for gay marriage, incest, whatever.Hell, bestiality as well as long as its nowhere near me.GandalfWagon

I don't know. I've never been sexualy attracted to anyone in my immediate family.. but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find some of my cousins fairly attractive.. of course that doesn't mean I'm going to sleep with them because I know better.

Whats one got to do with the other :? Tropicalshower

[QUOTE="Tropicalshower"]Whats one got to do with the other :? Bourbons3

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Tropicalshower"]Whats one got to do with the other :? Neon-Tiger

[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="Bourbons3"] Exactly.Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"] Both homosexuality and incest have been frowned upon until recent times... Actually, incest still is, while homosexuality is winning its space.Neon-Tiger

One is "problematic" in terms of what sexes "should" do with each other and the other is "problematic" in terms of the relationships in a nuclear family or extended from that. I dont necessarily try to point out that incest is objectively "worse" based on the above but no one bothers to point out differences when they want to make a convenient point.