Should sex between consenting adult siblings be considered immoral?

Controversial topics FTW!

In modern cultures across the world, incest is regarded as unacceptable, even between consenting adults. However, whilst this is a belief held by the majority of people of all cultures, regardless of whether they are religious or not, it is a belief born out of religion. Marriages between siblings in various ancient civilizations were in fact fairly common. In the animal kingdom, animals tend to be not too picky about having sex with siblings! So is there any real argument that it is unnatural other than arguments based on religion? ... From an Athiest point of view, is there any sound rational reason to consider sexual relations between consenting siblings immoral?

It's wrong becouse it produces children with genetic problems.yoshi-lnex

Proof? This is something which is still debated 

I think its wrong because if the two were to have offspring, there would be a very large chance that something would be wrong with the child.blooddemon666

I think its wrong because if the two were to have offspring, there would be a very large chance that something would be wrong with the child.blooddemon666

If this is true, then I feel it's wrong...especially for the child. 

Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.guynamedbilly

You're all saying this. But I'm not seeing much evidence 

Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.guynamedbilly

And also is that a sound or rational reason to consider it immoral. Do we consider it immoral for people suffering from dwarfism to procreate for example?

Inbreeding greatly enhances the chance for physical malady, but almost all but guarantees psychological problems.  If you really want to see what the extreme is, look at american-bred puppy-mill attack dogs like rottweilers or bull terriers; the inbred versions of these dogs have an immense propensity to attack without warning or cause.  They also have noticable physical differences, such as size (inbred rotties are genereally 30 - 50 lbs. heavier than non) and even odours. 

So, while inbreeding isn't necessarily immoral, what is produced from that kind of union is nothing short of damaged goods.

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Kid-Icarus-

You're all saying this. But I'm not seeing much evidence

That's because it's common knowledge.  Probably none of us here are scientists, so we can't break apart the DNA and tell you what the likelhood of defects will be.  Do like everyone else and use google.

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Kid-Icarus-

And also is that a sound or rational reason to consider it immoral. Do we consider it immoral for people suffering from dwarfism to procreate for example?

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Kid-Icarus-

You're all saying this. But I'm not seeing much evidence

google it...you could get some interesting things.. 

well if they dont have children, they are no worse than gay couples.Crucifier

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Kid-Icarus-

You're all saying this. But I'm not seeing much evidence

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.blooddemon666

And also is that a sound or rational reason to consider it immoral. Do we consider it immoral for people suffering from dwarfism to procreate for example?

Yes but the point is they are at a much higher risk of having children with dwarfism. Not all siblings who procreate have children with genetic defects either. 

It's wrong because of what happens to the children, they're usually born with some kind of defect.

Besides, it's gross. Come on.

It's wrong becouse it produces children with genetic problems.yoshi-lnex

And having sex with an HIV-positive woman can produce an AIDS baby if you don't use a condom.

[QUOTE="blooddemon666"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Kid-Icarus-

And also is that a sound or rational reason to consider it immoral. Do we consider it immoral for people suffering from dwarfism to procreate for example?

Yes but the point is they are at a much higher risk of having children with dwarfism. Not all siblings who procreate have children with genetic defects either.

Correct me if I'm wrong. 

Genetic testing has proven that children born to parents who are siblings have problems.

It increases the likelihood of homozygosity (the same alleles present on the offsprings genotypes). And if the family has a history of an inherited condition, then the children will most likely get it, and in effect have health problems.

It's been proven as fact, look it up instead of asking on an OT forum about something so controversial. 

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Kid-Icarus-

You're all saying this. But I'm not seeing much evidence 

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.yoshi-lnex

You're all saying this. But I'm not seeing much evidence

I don't understand how you can say that is enough reason to forbid it, I am not necessarily talking about pro-creating. I am talking about sexual relations and whether it is 'immoral' ... and also by the same argument you could say all people who are at a higher liklihood of having children with genetic defects should be banned from pro-creating ... rather fascististic no?

[QUOTE="Crucifier"]well if they dont have children, they are no worse than gay couples.Crucifier

BWAH!

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]It's wrong becouse it produces children with genetic problems.MrGeezer

And having sex with an HIV-positive woman can produce an AIDS baby if you don't use a condom.

then don't have sex without a condom. 

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]It's wrong becouse it produces children with genetic problems.yoshi-lnex

And having sex with an HIV-positive woman can produce an AIDS baby if you don't use a condom.

then don't have sex without a condom.

His point is. Why then should siblings not be allowed to have sex using a condom. It is considered immoral, even where it is not done for pro-creation. Why is that if the only argument is that siblings will have genetically defective babies? 

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Kid-Icarus-

You're all saying this. But I'm not seeing much evidence

I don't understand how you can say that is enough reason to forbid it, I am not necessarily talking about pro-creating. I am talking about sexual relations and whether it is 'immoral' ... and also by the same argument you could say all people who are at a higher liklihood of having children with genetic defects should be banned from pro-creating ... rather fascististic no?

People with large genetic defects should be banned from having children. 

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]It's wrong becouse it produces children with genetic problems.Kid-Icarus-

And having sex with an HIV-positive woman can produce an AIDS baby if you don't use a condom.

then don't have sex without a condom.

His point is. Why then should siblings not be allowed to have sex using a condom. It is considered immoral, even where it is not done for pro-creation. Why is that if the only argument is that siblings will have genetically defective babies?

sex in and of itself is meant to procreate. 

So HIV positive people should not be allowed to have sex at all, even using a condom, because their is a risk they may have a child who is born HIV positive? This is sounding incredibly fascistic. 

sex in and of itself is meant to procreate. 

blooddemon666

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]It's wrong becouse it produces children with genetic problems.yoshi-lnex

And having sex with an HIV-positive woman can produce an AIDS baby if you don't use a condom.

then don't have sex without a condom.

His point is. Why then should siblings not be allowed to have sex using a condom. It is considered immoral, even where it is not done for pro-creation. Why is that if the only argument is that siblings will have genetically defective babies?

Would you be in favour of legislation requiring YOU to be tested for every possible condition that could affect your child before you have protected sex?

"Oh baby, I would love to make love to you tonight, but my Huntington's Disease and sickle cell anemia papers aren't in order yet. But don't worry, I'm saving up for the tests. I should be ready to have sex with you sometime around 2047."

[QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

sex in and of itself is meant to procreate.

Crucifier

I have nothing wrong with homosexuals. But evolution does.

And If i remember reading correctly, people actually have either a pheromone or an instinct to dislike their sibling. 

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.blooddemon666

And also is that a sound or rational reason to consider it immoral. Do we consider it immoral for people suffering from dwarfism to procreate for example?

Yes but the point is they are at a much higher risk of having children with dwarfism. Not all siblings who procreate have children with genetic defects either.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong, and I know a little about the genetics of dwarfism as I actually know some people who are close to me, who have it.

Dwarfism is a genetic dominant trait, and it occurs spontaneously in 1:20000 births. When the person has it, one of their chromosomes has the mutation and another does not. The most common type occurs on Chromosome 4, so I'll use that as my example from here on out.

If this person were to procreate with an average height individual, then as you should all know when it comes to genetics, you gain one copy of each chromosome from your parents (each person has a pair of 23 chromosomes, 23 from father, 23 from mother). Now with Dwarfism as my example, 4d represents chromosome w/o dwarfism and 4D represents with.

The person with dwarfism (4D, 4d) procreates with the person w/o (4d, 4d) and the result could be:

"4D-4d", "4D-4d", "4d-4d", "4d-4d". Therefore 50% chance of acquiring an offspring with it, or 50% without it. Quite different from 1:20000.

If 2 people with dwarfism procreate (4D-4d, and 4D-4d), the results could be:

"4D-4D" (Lethal Double Dose, the baby is still born), "4D-4d", "4D-4d", "4d-4d". This results in 25% chance of still born, 50% chance dwarf and 25% average height.

If you wish to find out more on this, look up Achondroplasia on wikipedia: Most Common Form of dwarfism article. 

Kid-Icarus-

So HIV positive people should not be allowed to have sex at all, even using a condom, because their is a risk they may have a child who is born HIV positive? This is sounding incredibly fascistic.

Harsh reality; hiv is an incredibly deadly virus, it's very easily spread via body fluids, and the number infected is rising exponentially, I don't think it could be inforced, but if it could, it should be illegal for the infected to have sex. 

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]It's wrong becouse it produces children with genetic problems.MrGeezer

And having sex with an HIV-positive woman can produce an AIDS baby if you don't use a condom.

then don't have sex without a condom.

His point is. Why then should siblings not be allowed to have sex using a condom. It is considered immoral, even where it is not done for pro-creation. Why is that if the only argument is that siblings will have genetically defective babies?

Would you be in favour of legislation requiring YOU to be tested for every possible condition that could affect your child before you have protected sex?

"Oh baby, I would love to make love to you tonight, but my Huntington's Disease and sickle cell anemia papers aren't in order yet. But don't worry, I'm saving up for the tests. I should be ready to have sex with you sometime around 2047."

If it is eventually, then great. 

[QUOTE="blooddemon666"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Judza

And also is that a sound or rational reason to consider it immoral. Do we consider it immoral for people suffering from dwarfism to procreate for example?

Yes but the point is they are at a much higher risk of having children with dwarfism. Not all siblings who procreate have children with genetic defects either.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong, and I know a little about the genetics of dwarfism as I actually know some people who are close to me, who have it.

Dwarfism is a genetic dominant trait, and it occurs spontaneously in 1:20000 births. When the person has it, one of their chromosomes has the mutation and another does not. The most common type occurs on Chromosome 4, so I'll use that as my example from here on out.

If this person were to procreate with an average height individual, then as you should all know when it comes to genetics, you gain one copy of each chromosome from your parents (each person has a pair of 23 chromosomes, 23 from father, 23 from mother). Now with Dwarfism as my example, 4d represents chromosome w/o dwarfism and 4D represents with.

The person with dwarfism (4D, 4d) procreates with the person w/o (4d, 4d) and the result could be:

"4D-4d", "4D-4d", "4d-4d", "4d-4d". Therefore 50% chance of acquiring an offspring with it, or 50% without it. Quite different from 1:20000.

If 2 people with dwarfism procreate (4D-4d, and 4D-4d), the results could be:

"4D-4D" (Lethal Double Dose, the baby is still born), "4D-4d", "4D-4d", "4d-4d". This results in 25% chance of still born, 50% chance dwarf and 25% average height.

If you wish to find out more on this, look up Achondroplasia on wikipedia: Most Common Form of dwarfism article.

good info :D

Why are you even asking this question? Are you planning on having sex with one of your siblings?Probablysushi14

It could be considered a human rights issue.

"Hey man, you ain't a negro, so why are you wasting so much time trying to help them out?"

Granted, I'm not saying that the right to **** your cousin is the same as the right for blacks and women to vote, but I think it's along the same lines in principle. Hell, I know plenty of women who think that women should be allowed to walk around in public topless, but that doesn't mean they'd ever actually do it. 

Wait, so this is considered to be a "controversial" subject? People are actually wondering weather this is right or wrong? Everyone should know it's wrong. I thought society knew better.

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.yoshi-lnex

You're all saying this. But I'm not seeing much evidence

I don't understand how you can say that is enough reason to forbid it, I am not necessarily talking about pro-creating. I am talking about sexual relations and whether it is 'immoral' ... and also by the same argument you could say all people who are at a higher liklihood of having children with genetic defects should be banned from pro-creating ... rather fascististic no?

People with large genetic defects should be banned from having children.

I guess I want to start off by apologizing for any and all typos I make, I'm just writing on a whim at this point, because I'm mentally exhausted after studying for two finals I have tommorow.

Ok, well you don't need us to show you proof. It's easy to see that incestual births causes physical defects.
The most likley way to find it is through any anotmy books.
The most recent place I've seen something on this subject when in my Humanities 111 ****where we were going over ancient egypt. Just to explain, we (my lecture hall) saw slides of art which portrayed the pharohs. It is common knowledge in Ancient Civilization that royalty often had interfamily marraiges. (If you don't know that then you are too young or too uneducated for this discussion). Well anyway, many of the pieces of art showed male pharohs with breasts and slender figures, basically hermaphrodites. And the leading and most accepted reason for this is because of pharohs having children with their cousins and sometimes sisters. blah blah blah I'm done I guess