# Why is incest immoral?



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Bit of why I thought of making this thread, I'm having to take two filler classes this semester in college and went "lol why the fuck not pick sociology?"  It's only the second day and two students almost went and duked it out.  OH BOY! THIS CLASS IS GOING TO BE FUN!  The class derailed into whether or not the government should be allowed to regulate and create laws against groups not necessarily directly harming others, but fall outside social norms.  Student A thought it was the government's job to protect traditional american values.  Student B thought it was the people's job to stop the government discriminating against certain groups.

I was sitting in the corner munching my cheetos going "dis gun b good" waiting for the first punch to be thrown(it never happened, damnit).  I won't say what the original topic was cause it's pretty obvious what it was.  However for about ten minutes the topic derailed onto incest and using it as a scapegoat going, "if <x> becomes legalized then that'll lead to incest being legalized"


Some good points were raised though.   If two people are consenting adults of legal age and don't have a history of genetic disease or one of them is infertile and can't have kids, nor is one abused or has a history of abusing others, neither is mentally ill, neither has any stds or such, nor is it rape why is it still wrong?

Personally my view is as long as two people are consenting adults whatever.  That's their deal.  Just cause I think something is gross doesn't mean I'd have anything against two people participating in it.  I think anal is gross, does that mean I want anal to be criminalized?  I just don't things should be illegal for the sole purpose of "ewwww that's gross, make it illegal".


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jan 10, 2013)

The only time incest becomes immoral is when a heterosexual couple decides to risk a baby's health by having intercourse with each other. Adoption is a way around that I suppose.

But yeah, lot's of famous ppl loved their cousins. >.> Not to mention the beautiful relationship that Woody Allen has going with his wife. 

Why interfere in business that doesn't involve us?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> Why interfere in business that doesn't involve us?


Idunno, not my business to pry into what goes on in other people's bedrooms.


----------



## Symlus (Jan 10, 2013)

While I've never been one for anything like that, who are we to keep two lovers from loving, hmm? Even if we persecute them, they're still gonna be lovers, and all that would happen is a huge political issue which would derail mainstream America even further. I do not approve of incest, but I will not stop it.


----------



## Percy (Jan 10, 2013)

I don't mind it, as long as they're not endangering anyone.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Teh-Drahon said:


> While I've never been one for anything like that, who are we to keep two lovers from loving, hmm? Even if we persecute them, they're still gonna be lovers, and all that would happen is a huge political issue which would derail mainstream America even further. I do not approve of incest, but I will not stop it.


That raises another question.  How would the government even be able to prove they broke the law if the two people don't have a child together?  All they need is a condom and probability of getting caught and sent to jail 0%.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

So I haven't slept tonight cause I feel like death warmed up and it's now 7:00am. I log in to FAF and the first thread I am greeted with is one on incest. >.>


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jan 10, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> So I haven't slept tonight cause I feel like death warmed up and it's now 7:00am. I log in to FAF and the first thread I am greeted with is one on incest. >.>



We're talking some serious shit tonight, Randy. 

No favorite species or digigrade stuff this go round. XD


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 10, 2013)

Because it's creepy. That's half of what morals are. 

Sodomy was immoral or is immoral or something but there is nothing inherently wrong with it, etc


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> No favorite species or digigrade stuff this go round. XD


Do I even want to know?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

Personally, I couldn't care less what people do. Whatever floats their boat.


----------



## Pipsqueak (Jan 10, 2013)

The reason it's immoral is because for a good part of history birth defects were considered to be signs of God's displeasure. Or physical manifestations of sin.

As incest can lead to a high rate of birth defects, it obviously wasn't something God approved of. And hence, societies all internalized it as immoral.


----------



## Icen (Jan 10, 2013)

Jashwa said:


> Because it's creepy. That's half of what morals are.
> 
> Sodomy was immoral or is immoral or something but there is nothing inherently wrong with it, etc


This, more or less.

Personally, unless children are being made by hetero-couples, then whatever. As long as they're both adults and consenting/willing/what-have-you then that's their boat a'floating.

But then again I too personally find it fucking creepy because what the fuck, how can you fall in love like that with anyone in your god damn family? ESPECIALLY immediate blood siblings?!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

Pipsqueak said:


> The reason it's immoral is because for a good part of history birth defects were considered to be signs of God's displeasure. Or physical manifestations of sin.
> 
> As incest can lead to a high rate of birth defects, it obviously wasn't something God approved of. And hence, societies all internalized it as immoral.



Considering that these days a majority people don't seem to know wtf contraception is I think it's a good thing it is illegal.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jan 10, 2013)

Jashwa said:


> Because it's creepy. That's half of what morals are.
> 
> Sodomy was immoral or is immoral or something but there is nothing inherently wrong with it, etc



Spiders are creepy. 

Let's get rid of all the things we hate. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Considering that these days a majority people don't seem to know wtf contraception is I think it's a good thing it is illegal.


*hold on* *reading about health risks, reading, reading*
Eh, it's only if there's several generations of incest.  If it's just a one time deal within a family the risks are minimal and the few health risks that do occur are in the first year.  It's only if it's like 3'rd or 4'th generation do serious health risks pop up.
If it's like third of fourth generation of incest no, definitely no.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> *hold on* *reading about health risks, reading, reading*
> Eh, it's only if there's several generations of incest.  If it's just a one time deal within a family the risks are minimal and the few health risks that do occur are in the first year.  It's only if it's like 3'rd or 4'th generation do serious health risks pop up.
> If it's like third of fourth generation of incest no, definitely no.



My point still stands.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 10, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Personally, I couldn't care less what people do. Whatever floats their boat.





Randy-Darkshade said:


> Considering that these days a majority people don't seem to know wtf contraception is I think it's a good thing it is illegal.


These two statements seem to contradict a lot, even if they could technically be considered non contradictory. 


And why does your point still stand even if there weren't many risks involved? That just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Jan 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> *hold on* *reading about health risks, reading, reading*
> Eh, it's only if there's several generations of incest.  If it's just a one time deal within a family the risks are minimal and the few health risks that do occur are in the first year.  It's only if it's like 3'rd or 4'th generation do serious health risks pop up.
> If it's like third of fourth generation of incest no, definitely no.


If the first generation is already open to incest, what's going to stop the next ones?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Mayonnaise said:


> If the first generation is already open to incest, what's going to stop the next ones?


Hi slippery slope.  I was wondering how long until you showed up.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

Jashwa said:


> These two statements seem to contradict a lot, even if they could technically be considered non contradictory.
> 
> 
> And why does your point still stand even if there weren't many risks involved? That just doesn't make any sense.



They seem too but they don't. 

Because the risks are still present.



CannonFodder said:


> Hi slippery slope.  I was wondering how long until you showed up.



Mayonnaise is right though.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Jan 10, 2013)

Pipsqueak said:


> The reason it's immoral is because for a good part of history birth defects were considered to be signs of God's displeasure. Or physical manifestations of sin.As incest can lead to a high rate of birth defects, it obviously wasn't something God approved of. And hence, societies all internalized it as immoral.


Aren't most bibles themselves quite notorious for the incestuous relashionships of some their characters?
Did it only become a problem when they associated it to birth defects?


----------



## Mayonnaise (Jan 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Hi slippery slope.  I was wondering how long until you showed up.


Hey, I'm not slippery.

Someone is going to ask it sooner or later anyway.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 10, 2013)

Because humans are stupid as fuck, and if we tried to make it "Oh, one or two sexual intercounters with condoms on and all that noise is okay, but beyond that, no way bro", it'd be "Yeah screwing your sister/brother/mother/father is alright, just watch out, you might have retarded children" within a few decades, and then humanity would be somehow, someway, even more stupid.

People screw things up _constantly_, especially laws/rules/social guidance/etc. so it's best to just not give us an inch, because you know we'll take a freaking mile.


----------



## Saiko (Jan 10, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Mayonnaise is right though.


Mhm, it actually is a valid "slippery-slope" in this case. Completely legalizing incest would make it possible for such a thing to happen under law. The point of the law was to protect against disorders arising from incest, so this course of action would be a step backwards. However, making it legal with the exception of multiple generations essentially results in separate laws for healthy citizens who happen to have incestuous parents. They are bound by a law due to a decision they had no part in, and they are otherwise indistinguishable from other citizens. It creates a double standard.


----------



## TheDarrdarr (Jan 10, 2013)

Even cases where there is the 'risk of birth defects', people are forgetting that we allow people to reproduce who KNOWINGLY are gene carriers for disorders like hemophilia or some other disease, and no one stops them from making more babies. There is no law against it in a case where the risk is already extremely high. Or when people don't know they're carriers they have a child who has the disorder, and despite the fact that they have just learned their genes have that predisposition they make MORE kids anyway. If that stuff is legal, there is little reason to bar family members from reproducing with each other because of a low risk of some kind of birth defect.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Because humans are stupid as fuck, and if we tried to make it "Oh, one or two sexual intercounters with condoms on and all that noise is okay, but beyond that, no way bro", it'd be "Yeah screwing your sister/brother/mother/father is alright, just watch out, you might have retarded children" within a few decades, and then humanity would be somehow, someway, even more stupid.
> 
> People screw things up _constantly_, especially laws/rules/social guidance/etc. so it's best to just not give us an inch, because you know we'll take a freaking mile.



But people like things that come in inches. The more inches the better.



TheDarrdarr said:


> Even cases where there is the 'risk of birth defects', people are forgetting that we allow people to reproduce who KNOWINGLY are gene carriers for disorders like hemophilia or some other disease, and no one stops them from making more babies. There is no law against it in a case where the risk is already extremely high. Or when people don't know they're carriers they have a child who has the disorder, and despite the fact that they have just learned their genes have that predisposition they make MORE kids anyway. If that stuff is legal, there is little reason to bar family members from reproducing with each other because of a low risk of some kind of birth defect.



Actually, it is illegal here for people who have down syndrome to reproduce. Because there is a huge chance their off spring will have it too.


----------



## TheDarrdarr (Jan 10, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> \
> 
> Actually, it is illegal here for people who have down syndrome to reproduce. Because there is a huge chance their off spring will have it too.



Oh really? Where is that? (I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.)(EDIT: just saw you location, whoops) Though does that law cover only down syndrome or other diseases? Also, what about people who carry the genes that give a high risk for down syndrome but don't actually have it themselves? And I'm somewhat doubtful that we have laws like that in the US, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

TheDarrdarr said:


> Oh really? Where is that? (I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.)(EDIT: just saw you location, whoops) Though does that law cover only down syndrome or other diseases? Also, what about people who carry the genes that give a high risk for down syndrome but don't actually have it themselves? And I'm somewhat doubtful that we have laws like that in the US, but I could be wrong.



As far as I know just Down syndrome. It may have changed since I heard about it, it was some time ago I heard about it.


----------



## Arl (Jan 10, 2013)

I recall something about pharamone signatures being assimilated into memory making people who lived closely together at a young age have aversions to the notion of sex together. This is present in about 70% of humans, so there is your actual reason for the dislike of incest, the squick factor. Most humans gag at the thought of boinking their siblings as prompted by chemical reaction. The majority dosent like it so they make it illegal for those who do like it because most humans are selfish pricks at heart.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 10, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> So I haven't slept tonight cause I feel like death warmed up and it's now 7:00am. I log in to FAF and the first thread I am greeted with is one on incest. >.>



"_Incest - the game the whole family can play!_"


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 10, 2013)

Jashwa said:


> Because it's creepy. That's half of what morals are.
> 
> Sodomy was immoral or is immoral or something but there is nothing inherently wrong with it, etc



Immoral =/= creepy.
Just because something is creeping you out that doesn't make it bad or even immoral.



Pipsqueak said:


> The reason it's immoral is because for a good part of history birth defects were considered to be signs of God's displeasure. Or physical manifestations of sin.
> 
> As incest can lead to a high rate of birth defects, it obviously wasn't something God approved of. And hence, societies all internalized it as immoral.



You are right about the source of why people think it's immoral. It's both about birth defects and god.
However, god is fake and we have ways to calculate the actual risks for birth defects these days. The couple could have their genes analyzed and then they could decide wither having their own child would be an option.
I don't see anything wrong with incest at all. Love shouldn't be controlled like this. In my opinion we should give people a chance to be responsible.

Also, incest is actually a driving force of evolution. Mixing genes with siblings doesn't have to result in birth defects, it can actually lead to very beneficial genetic variations.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Actually, it is illegal here for people who have down syndrome to reproduce. Because there is a huge chance their off spring will have it too.



While I think that making it illegal for them is somewhat immoral in itself I still think that is the right choice...
Men with DS are almost always infertile. The rate of defects in spermatogenesis is very high, according to Wikipedia there are only three known cases of a male person with DS having kids.
Women with DS on the other hand usually are fertile. In many cases they have problems with misscarriage, premature birth and difficult labor. And about 50% of all babies then have DS as well... So while it is still unfair to prevent them from having offspring, it still makes sense because in this case the risks really are too high, both for the mother and the child.


----------



## Venu.Shade (Jan 10, 2013)

personally im not too big a fan of it.. being the anime/yaoi fan that i am ive paired some people together in my head in incest pairs... but thats with people who arent real..

when it comes to real life. like said above, if they are careful not to reproduce at all then fine. 1st generation only, fine. anything further.. no thanks.. you should get your heads checked :/


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 10, 2013)

DarknessFlame said:


> you should get your heads checked :/



Why? As I said above, you have ways to get your genes checked for possible defects. Why shouldn't we give them at least a chance to be responsible? AND happy?
You just wrote them off as mentally ill...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Why? As I said above, you have ways to get your genes checked for possible defects. Why shouldn't we give them at least a chance to be responsible? AND happy?
> You just wrote them off as mentally ill...



There is a lot of "normal" people out there that wouldn't know what responsibility was even if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 10, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> There is a lot of "normal" people out there that wouldn't know what responsibility was even if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.



It is still unfair to deny it for those who DO know what resposibility is though.
It's a slippery slope, I know. And it might just be for the best not to allow them to have offspring.
However, I don't think there is anything wrong with a relationship like that. Be it cousins, siblings, or even with the parents. I don't judge people based on who they love. And writing them off as mentally ill is just not right.


----------



## BRN (Jan 10, 2013)

I find the *"slippery slope"* idea to be absolutely bizarre.


It's an acknowledgement that "in the future, people will not mind something." It's a future-based application of present idealogy which *assumes* that the future's idealogies will be different, and that something which was previously stigmatised and rebuked will become acceptable. Why do we not race towards that? Why do we stigmatise and demonise the idea that tolerance and understanding will reign supreme in the future with such a label as "slippery slope"? 

incest is wincest etc etc, educate people to be aware of genetics and the idea of gene pools, promote birth control, homosex is best sex, etc etc, but seriously, fuck social conservatism.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 10, 2013)

SIX said:


> I find the *"slippery slope"* idea to be absolutely bizarre.
> 
> 
> It's an acknowledgement that "in the future, people will not mind something." It's a future-based application of present idealogy which *assumes* that the future's idealogies will be different, and that something which was previously stigmatised and rebuked will become acceptable. Why do we not race towards that? Why do we stigmatise and demonise the idea that tolerance and understanding will reign supreme in the future with such a label as "slippery slope"?
> ...



I do agree with you.
However, this whole responsibility thing when it comes to offspring is a massive issue. Gene tests take a long time and are expensive. People these days don't even use protection against AIDS and STDs.
Sure, some (or maybe even most) people would be responsible and get checked. But you can't expect that everyone is gonna do it.

How will it be in the future? I don't know. But right now it is rather predictable how it's gonna go.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

Some people are saying 'it's okay as long as they don't have children,' but this skips a rather important point- how is this to be enforced? If an incestuous couple became pregnant, would they legally be forced to terminate their pregnancy? I suppose this rules out fertile couples entirely. 

Interestingly in the middle east, in places like israel, about 67% of people in some communities marry people in their families, mostly cousins. Despite being orthodox jewish communities they have a hyperbolically high rate of birth defects and hence abortions. Some people who have been born out of such families and suffered the effects of birth defects have sued doctors for not recommending abortion, in cases of 'wrongful life'. 


A question remains though, how come people with certain genetic defects can reproduce where as people with no evident genetic defects, but similar genes, can't? 

It's a carrier/sufferer scenario. If you suffer from sickle cell anheamia you carry two sets of a recessive gene, unlucky you. If you reproduce you may only pass on one of those genes and the child who recieves it will not be a sufferer, but a carrier. Just having one of these recessive genes isn't harmful...in fact your child will have a boosted immune system against diseases like malaria. 

However allowing people with similar genes to breed maximises the chances of carriers meeting and creating sufferers. This is one justification for allowing some sufferers to reproduce, but perhaps encouraging embryonic screening, and not allowing people in genetically similar gene pools to reproduce.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jan 10, 2013)

This thread is disturbing.


----------



## Rilvor (Jan 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Some people are saying 'it's okay as long as they don't have children,' but this skips a rather important point- how is this to be enforced? If an incestuous couple became pregnant, would they legally be forced to terminate their pregnancy? I suppose this rules out fertile couples entirely.
> 
> Interestingly in the middle east, in places like israel, about 67% of people in some communities marry people in their families, mostly cousins. Despite being orthodox jewish communities they have a hyperbolically high rate of birth defects and hence abortions. Some people who have been born out of such families and suffered the effects of birth defects have sued doctors for not recommending abortion, in cases of 'wrongful life'.
> 
> ...


Fallow has beaten me to it with this.


d.batty said:


> This thread is disturbing.


Indeed.

Failing all else folks, it would seem to me that a fair number of us humans simply don't like the idea and find it extremely unappealing.


----------



## Thaily (Jan 10, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Failing all else folks, it would seem to me that a fair number of us humans simply don't like the idea and find it extremely unappealing.



Which is natural, in nature there's all sorts of social structures and instincts to prevent inbreeding in animals that live in family units.
Like wolves, or meerkats, only the alphas are supposed to breed, and some of the offspring leave the pack to start their own with an unrelated member of another family unit.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 10, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Failing all else folks, it would seem to me that a fair number of us humans simply don't like the idea and find it extremely unappealing.



Two things: 
First of all, just finding something unappealing isn't a reason to ban it. Some people find it stimulating to shit and piss on each other while they are getting their mack on and I don't see people rallying to ban that.
Second of all, I think it is interesting to look at why most of us find it so unappealing.
Personally I just don't want to screw my sisters because one of them is a bitch and the other one is 15 
But what does drive society towards hating the idea of incest? What makes us uncomfortable about it?
I believe it has mostly to do with weird traditions, bias and religion. But that's just me.



Thaily said:


> Which is natural, in nature there's all sorts of social structures and instincts to prevent inbreeding in animals that live in family units.
> Like wolves, only the alphas are supposed to breed, and some of the offspring leave the pack to start their own with a member of another unrelated pack.



That is not true for all animals though. If you have a small population of animals for example inbreeding is pretty much bound to happen in some fashion.
It can even be a driving force of evolution since inbreeding causes a little more drastic but still rather predictable variations.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> There is a lot of "normal" people out there that wouldn't know what responsibility was even if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.


Oh boy it's the "everyone in society is stupid except for me" argument.  Randy the average IQ is 100(yes I also know they have changed the standard, but everyone knows the whole "my IQ is #"), because they calculate the average for society and as a result the average is considered to be 100.  That means yes there are people who don't know better, but that also means most people are intellectually capable of understanding their situation and understand the consequences of their actions.  It's when you don't care about the consequences of your actions that you are considered to be doing something stupid.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

Thaily said:


> Which is natural, in nature there's all sorts of social structures and instincts to prevent inbreeding in animals that live in family units.
> Like wolves, or meerkats, only the alphas are supposed to breed, and some of the offspring leave the pack to start their own with an unrelated member of another family unit.



Human remains indicate that in prehistoric tribes our ancestors would migrate away from their homelands in search of mates. Perhaps disgust at incest motivated them to look for genes elsewhere, improving genetic resilience. 

The human gene pool is small, especially after genetic bottle necks at around the time of the Toba eruption, so it pays to mix them up.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 10, 2013)

Don't forget Historically recorded Incest with Noble/royal bloodlines too and what happened to them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Don't forget Historically recorded Incest with Noble/royal bloodlines too and what happened to them.


Didn't Einstein marry his cousin?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Don't forget Historically recorded Incest with Noble/royal bloodlines too and what happened to them.



http://www.whale.to/b/queen_58.jpg

That happens.



CannonFodder said:


> Didn't Einstein marry his cousin?



'Einstein married Elsa LÃ¶wenthal  on 2 June 1919, after having had a relationship with her since 1912.  She was his first cousin maternally and his second cousin paternally. '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

Yes. First cousin is, I believe, the closest you are allowed in many countries.


----------



## Aetius (Jan 10, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Don't forget Historically recorded Incest with Noble/royal bloodlines too and what happened to them.



Kinda sad how fucked up the last Spanish Habsburg king was due to incest.


----------



## Thaily (Jan 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Human remains indicate that in prehistoric tribes our ancestors would migrate away from their homelands in search of mates. Perhaps disgust at incest motivated them to look for genes elsewhere, improving genetic resilience.
> 
> The human gene pool is small, especially after genetic bottle necks at around the time of the Toba eruption, so it pays to mix them up.



Pretty much, genetic diversity increases our resilience to diseases and the like. 
And yeah, look at the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, wiped out because generations of inbreeding made them infertile.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 10, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Kinda sad how fucked up the last Spanish Habsburg king was due to incest.



Good thing we can prevent this sort of thing through analyzing the genes... That poor bastard


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Thaily said:


> Pretty much, genetic diversity increases our resilience to diseases and the like.


And yet all it takes for a pandemic that NOBODY is immune to is a virus that attacks t-cells.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> And yes all it takes to create a pandemic that NOBODY is immune to is a virus that attacks t-cells.



If we are referring to HIV some people are immune, particularly europeans or people with european ancestry. [although it's still a fraction of a percent]


----------



## BRN (Jan 10, 2013)

There's a world of difference between allowing incestuous relationships, and claiming that you have a superior bloodline so that all you're gonna do for generations is fuck your sister and daughter

When that happens, tolerance and social progress go out the window; if you try to claim that, your family deserve the consequences.

ED: "Your family deserve the consequences" sounds so unlike what I meant.

What I meant was that I'd totally permit a family to do what it wanted, so long as everybody consented. It's just that the inevitability of the outcome shouldn't surprise them, and it won't surprise anybody else.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

SIX said:


> There's a world of difference between allowing incestuous relationships, and claiming that you have a superior bloodline so that all you're gonna do for generations is fuck your sister and daughter
> 
> When that happens, tolerance and social progress go out the window; if you try to claim that, your family deserve the consequences.




Yes, one of them is an extreme example, but real life examples of widespread incestuous relationships in whole communities, notably religious communities in the middle east, demonstrate genetic defects do become substantially more of a problem.

Said communities marry their cousins, I think in arranged marriages, because they are less likely to split up.


----------



## BRN (Jan 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Yes, one of them is an extreme example, but real life examples of widespread incestuous relationships in whole communities, notably religious communities in the middle east, demonstrate genetic defects do become substantially more of a problem.
> 
> Said communities marry their cousins, I think in arranged marriages, because they are less likely to split up.




Just to note, I threw in an edit to better clarify my position as being far less aggressive than it accidentally sounded.

See, what I believe in is that all things should be permitted, but also that nobody should be directed. I see cultural enforcement of incest in your example middle-eastern communities as being just as disagreeable as the cultural ostracision of incestuous couples in western communities.

 Notably, it also happens to be more harmful to the gene-pool to enforce incest than it is to ostracise incestuous individuals, but it's harmful to the incestuous individuals to be ostracised, too. My conclusion; nothing good comes out of dogma.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Yes, one of them is an extreme example, but  real life examples of widespread incestuous relationships in whole  communities, notably religious communities in the middle east,  demonstrate genetic defects do become substantially more of a problem.
> 
> Said communities marry their cousins, I think in arranged marriages, because they are less likely to split up.


Personally I really really dislike arranged marriages, cause it's not by the person's consent they are getting married.  The individual is raised to believe they have no choice over their lives and have to marry a individual.  What's worse is that there's even a shit ton of parents that go and kill their kids cause they didn't want to marry or didn't marry the person they arranged.

Basically my views are non-consentual marriage is not cool, non-consentual sex is not cool therefore arranged marriages are not cool.


----------



## Thaily (Jan 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> And yet all it takes for a pandemic that NOBODY is immune to is a virus that attacks t-cells.



Or a meteor that wipes out all human life, but so far so good.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh boy it's the "everyone in society is stupid except for me" argument.



I never said that.


----------



## GhostWolf (Jan 10, 2013)

I think Wikipedia put it best read the article on inbreeding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding


----------



## Harbinger (Jan 10, 2013)

Because its fucking nasty.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

SIX said:


> Just to note, I threw in an edit to better clarify my position as being far less aggressive than it accidentally sounded.
> 
> See, what I believe in is that all things should be permitted, but also that nobody should be directed. I see cultural enforcement of incest in your example middle-eastern communities as being just as disagreeable as the cultural ostracision of incestuous couples in western communities.
> 
> Notably, it also happens to be more harmful to the gene-pool to enforce incest than it is to ostracise incestuous individuals, but it's harmful to the incestuous individuals to be ostracised, too. My conclusion; nothing good comes out of dogma.



Does the harm to inidividuals who suffer from increased rates of genetic disease unconsentually, exceed the distress of incestuous groups' discouraged from having sex? 

I'm not entirely sure, because the harm is difficult to quantify. I have a personal suspicion the former is a more serious problem in the long run.


----------



## Bliss (Jan 10, 2013)

The Japanese are again ahead of us!



Fallowfox said:


> http://www.whale.to/b/queen_58.jpg
> 
> That happens.


Perfection? >:U


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> The Japanese are again ahead of us!


We may laugh at how weird japan is, but then you realize they're just ahead of us by about 30 years when it comes to social norms.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 10, 2013)

I have mental pairings of furfag characters of my own that are, ehm, incestual.

It's mostly for the squick factor and the reactions it creates. But uh, ignoring the terrible outcomes it's... _kinda_ hot. At gross at the same time. 
Which makes it interesting from a fictional standpoint.

But the thought of me doing anything incestual makes me want to cut my own head off with a rusty breadknife. 

So much squick.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

Gibby said:


> I have mental pairings of furfag characters of my own that are, ehm, incestual.



I have the same.  You're not alone there.



> It's mostly for the squick factor and the reactions it creates. But uh, ignoring the terrible outcomes it's... _kinda_ hot. At gross at the same time.
> Which makes it interesting from a fictional standpoint.



I do it for RP purposes between me and my mate. She often has crazy and random ideas. But the way I see it is it's fiction, who cares if it's fiction? 



> But the thought of me doing anything incestual makes me want to cut my own head off with a rusty breadknife.
> 
> So much squick.



I would like to believe most, if not all of us here wouldn't even dream of it irl.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I would like to believe most, if not all of us here wouldn't even dream of it irl.


I'd rather get anally raped by a cactus on fire than do my sister.


----------



## BRN (Jan 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Does the harm to inidividuals who suffer from increased rates of genetic disease unconsentually, exceed the distress of incestuous groups' discouraged from having sex?
> 
> I'm not entirely sure, because the harm is difficult to quantify. I have a personal suspicion the former is a more serious problem in the long run.



Now that's an extremely curious question. You're right to say the harm is hard to quantify, and I understand what you intend to say, but I'm not sure I agree with your premise -- is it harmful to be 5'5 when your peers are 6'3? Is it harmful to be 5'0? Or 4'5, or 7'7? 
Hell, my thoughts are that it's harder to correctly assign blame for the harm than it is to quantify it.

Taking height as my primary example, there are situations where your height can be deleterious - it can scupper your chances of a particular job, or getting onto a fairground ride, but aren't the problems in both those cases caused by the inflexibility of others, rather than your genetic code? [Hell, I could argue it all comes down to capitalism, but that would be too easy.]

And taking the far more obvious example of a crippled body functions or severe autism or any of the rest of the obvious mental and physical retardations that come to mind when incest comes into the discussion, the problems there are multiply complex... it would be a cheap, thought-deadening shot to blame incest for the problems autistic children face when the discrimination they face is perverse regardless of what people know or think they know about the child's parents.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I'd rather get anally raped by a cactus on fire than do my sister.



I'd rather be ass raped by someone from these forums than do anyone in my family.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I'd rather be ass raped by someone from these forums than do anyone in my family.


Are you flirting with me?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

SIX said:


> Now that's an extremely curious question. You're right to say the harm is hard to quantify, andI understand what you intend to say but I'm not sure I agree with your premise -- is it harmful to be 5'5 when your peers are 6'3? Is it harmful to be 5'0? Or 4'5, or 7'7? Hell, my thoughts are that it's harder to correctly assign blame for the harm than it is to quantify it.
> 
> Taking height as my primary example, there are situations where your height can be deleterious - it can scupper your chances of a particular job, or getting onto a fairground ride, but aren't the problems in both those cases caused by the inflexibility of others, rather than your genetic code? [Hell, I could argue it all comes down to capitalism, but that would be too easy.]
> 
> And taking the far more obvious example of a crippled body functions or severe autism or any of the rest of the obvious mental and physical retardations that come to mind when incest comes into the discussion, the problems there are multiply complex... it would be a cheap, thought-deadening shot to blame incest for the problems autistic children face when the discrimination they face is perverse regardless of what people know or think they know about the child's parents.



Trivial changes in morphology, like height, can be disqualified as can societal factors if we want to play devil's advocate.

 Monotesticularity, infertility, astigmatism, blindness, huntington's, cannot not automatically be attributed to incest, but their associated probability of occuring is increased by it and they aren't good for the sufferer even if societal prejudices are omitted. Hence if incestuous relations were permited and the incidence of these disabilities rose, the children who suffer from them might turn to us in lament for what we have done.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 10, 2013)

Incest is great for the furry who feels like their best chance of getting laid is to seek out the possible one female/male in their life who has to talk to them based on their disposition that they share the same parents. :V


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Are you flirting with me?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Incest is great for the furry who feels like their best chance of getting laid is to seek out the possible one female/male in their life who has to talk to them based on their disposition that they share the same parents. :V



Thank goodness there's just one of them then.


----------



## BRN (Jan 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Trivial changes in morphology, like height, can be disqualified as can societal factors if we want to play devil's advocate.
> 
> Monotesticularity, infertility, astigmatism, blindness, huntington's, cannot not automatically be attributed to incest, but their associated probability of occuring is increased by it and they aren't good for the sufferer even if societal prejudices are omitted. Hence if incestuous relations were permited and the incidence of these disabilities rose, the children who suffer from them might turn to us in lament for what we have done.




But this is where it gets really interesting, because the world is developing in more ways than mere population. Advances in medical care stun me every day - we've just recently performed a full hand transplant. With science and technology and the steady creeping forwards of universal healthcare, the one thing standing in the way of drastic change is the peculiar inability of people to talk about their bodies, or of mental and physical health. 

People still die of undetected cancers because people seem to refuse to admit that everyone has a chance of being struck by the hand of god, so to speak. And yet imagine if people didn't feel afraid to consult a psychologist or physician; how many people might begin to treat the topic of health with more respect and less fear? Is it really so easy to just say "if societal prejudices were omitted" without really changing the field of play?

But I'm distracting myself from the real issue here. Remember, I'm not arguing for everybody to fool around with their sisters; I'm just saying that the prejudice against incestuous couples shouldn't exist. It's true that the concentration of a family's genepool leads to concentration of alleles that essentially ups the probabilities of suffering a deleterious genetic fault; but consider this: even a monotesticular and infertile sufferer of astigmatism, blindness and huntington's can leave a legacy to the planet. Discrimination acts to the infinite detriment of the parents-who-might-not-be, and awards nothing to society in general.


----------



## Sam 007 NL (Jan 10, 2013)

I don't particulary think incest is wrong, hey if you love someone in your family and they like you back go for it  (I'm not incest by the way...)

In some states in the US you can actually get life penalty for it 0.0


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Sam 007 NL said:


> In some states in the US you can actually get life penalty for it 0.0


Welcome to america, where murderers can get out decades early and sex can get you locked up for good.


----------



## BRN (Jan 10, 2013)

Sam 007 NL said:


> In some states in the US you can actually get life penalty for it 0.0




See, this I don't understand. Life penalties obviously throw rehabilitation out the window, since you're condeming someone to a forty-year death, so is this to punish people (for what) or deter (why)?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

SIX said:


> But this is where it gets really interesting, because the world is developing in more ways than mere population. Advances in medical care stun me every day - we've just recently performed a full hand transplant. With science and technology and the steady creeping forwards of universal healthcare, the one thing standing in the way of drastic change is the peculiar inability of people to talk about their bodies, or of mental and physical health.
> 
> People still die of undetected cancers because people seem to refuse to admit that everyone has a chance of being struck by the hand of god, so to speak. And yet imagine if people didn't feel afraid to consult a psychologist or physician; how many people might begin to treat the topic of health with more respect and less fear? Is it really so easy to just say "if societal prejudices were omitted" without really changing the field of play?
> 
> But I'm distracting myself from the real issue here. Remember, I'm not arguing for everybody to fool around with their sisters; I'm just saying that the prejudice against incestuous couples shouldn't exist. It's true that the concentration of a family's genepool leads to concentration of alleles that essentially ups the probabilities of suffering a deleterious genetic fault; but consider this: even a monotesticular and infertile sufferer of astigmatism, blindness and huntington's can leave a legacy to the planet. Discrimination acts to the infinite detriment of the parents-who-might-not-be, and awards nothing to society in general.



Hand transplants aren't entirely recent, that was just the UK's first. Hand transplants are not exactly medical miracles either, immuno-surpressing drugs must be taken or your body will attack the foreign limb causing it to become gangrenous. Medicine is a mixture of being surprisingly advanced and surprisingly limited. 

The most fiesable application screening has towards incest is the screening of children in the uterus of known incestuous mothers. This has an associated risk of miscarriage, isn't always successful and cannot detect the full plethora of possible defects, but you've mooted that point by associating the intentional avoidance of instigating disability with discrimination. 

People who have the misfortune of being disabled should be treated without discrimination, but there is cruelty in giving the a-okay to relationships that could result in children being born only to live very sufferous lives.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

SIX said:


> See, this I don't understand. Life penalties obviously throw rehabilitation out the window, since you're condeming someone to a forty-year death, so is this to punish people (for what) or deter (why)?


Six it's the usa, our government is more insane than winnie the pooh's homerun derby and trying to get the justice system to work properly is like batting against christopher robin.


----------



## BRN (Jan 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> People who have the misfortune of being disabled should be treated without discrimination, but there is cruelty in giving the a-okay to relationships that could result in children being born only to live very sufferous lives.



This is extremely true. However - and please forgive this comparison - we are all allowed to cook meat for ourselves and others, drive our own cars in roads shared by others, gamble - but imagine the lives we would lead if regulation and law defined every acceptable action.

For that tiny proportion of people who have mutual attractions that society doesn't like, I truly believe nothing justifies a blanket ban out of fears for security when the rest of daily life is rife with risk.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

SIX said:


> This is extremely true. However - and please forgive this comparison - we are all allowed to cook meat for ourselves and others, drive our own cars in roads shared by others, gamble - but imagine the lives we would lead if regulation and law defined every acceptable action.
> 
> For that tiny proportion of people who have mutual attractions that society doesn't like, I truly believe nothing justifies a blanket ban out of fears for security when the rest of daily life is rife with risk.



I'm inclined to agree on the condition that incestuous hetereosexual are compelled to inform their doctor so that they can debate measures to prevent having children with crippling hereditory diseases, much like a family with a history of breast cancer would be informed on how to combat their associated problems.


----------



## Kazooie (Jan 10, 2013)

"To what degree should we protect humanity from themselves?"
-Every science fiction book ever.

It's an interesting question, though. I don't have any problem with incestuous couples as long as they're not combining genetics, but then again, it seems like a Bad Idea as a whole; if the relationship goes sour, it's not like you can just remove them from your life easily (like you can regular relationships). It's also why I think work-cest and class-cest aren't great ideas, either.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 10, 2013)

Incest is only immoral because of the "ew gross" factor.

One could argue about genetic mutations, diseases, and all that but that's pretty hypocritical given that there's more of a chance for a woman over 40 to have a kid with Down's than it is for a brother and sister to have a kid with some genetic defect. Now if it's frequent among families or a parent/child conception then it's more likely but still we don't screen everyone to determine a kid's defect possibility so why do it only with incest?


----------



## BRN (Jan 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm inclined to agree on the condition that incestuous hetereosexual are compelled to inform their doctor so that they can debate measures to prevent having children with crippling hereditory diseases, much like a family with a history of breast cancer would be informed on how to combat their associated problems.



To be fair, we could do all around with increased education and awareness of birth control, aswell as just destigmatising the condom. While I'm not too fond of government monitoring as an idea, I recognise that I'm on the mirror edge between arguing a case and pushing idealogy at the moment - and any push towards destigmatisation would be a refreshing leap of progress for the minority repressed.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

SIX said:


> To be fair, we could do all around with increased education and awareness of birth control, aswell as just destigmatising the condom. While I'm not too fond of government monitoring as an idea, I recognise that I'm on the mirror edge between arguing a case and pushing idealogy at the moment - and any push towards destigmatisation would be a refreshing leap of progress for the minority repressed.


Down here they only teach abstinence only sex education.  Having real sex education and teaching about condoms would do fucking miracles.


----------



## skyelar (Jan 10, 2013)

As someone who hasn't looked into the law, how do incest laws work for non-blood family members (adopted siblings or family-by-marriage?) Because if we still persecute those, then I think these laws aren't entirely about the health of the child and are more about the lack of understanding on another group's part (see: sodomy.)


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

skyelar said:


> As someone who hasn't looked into the law, how do incest laws work for non-blood family members (adopted siblings or family-by-marriage?)


Still illegal.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Still illegal.



That's kinda ridiculous.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 10, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Aren't most bibles themselves quite notorious for the incestuous relashionships of some their characters?
> Did it only become a problem when they associated it to birth defects?




lot was visited by angels who told him to gtfo of sodom and gomora, he and his two daughters took up living in a cave once they fled and the daughters thought it was the end of man so they got him drunk, both banged him and bore him two sons.


----------



## FireFeathers (Jan 10, 2013)

I have no words.

Imbreeding breeds serious genetic issues- Not just fourth round, it breeds first round as well - you're assuming the people breeding together are without fault. Without any major genetic problems, by your 2nd or 3rd round, you'll get a line so weak and susceptible to a large round of genetic defects that the likelyhood of infertility is fairly high.  I like this argument that for evolution, imbreeding needs to exist- when it's the opposite; we get diversity and evolutionary gains from breeding with different lines.  If you breed the same thing, you get the same result.  For comparison  compare any endangered species that's kept alive by imbreeding. The result is infertility until the line wipes out, they make huge effort to divisify the limited lines left so that doesn't happen.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Jan 10, 2013)

dinosaurdammit said:


> lot was visited by angels who told him to gtfo of sodom and gomora, he and his two daughters took up living in a cave once they fled and the daughters thought it was the end of man so they got him drunk, both banged him and bore him two sons.


What was God's opinion of that?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 10, 2013)

dinosaurdammit said:


> lot was visited by angels who told him to gtfo of sodom and gomora, he and his two daughters took up living in a cave once they fled and the daughters thought it was the end of man so they got him drunk, both banged him and bore him two sons.



Seeing how the bible is focusing on sex, rape and guys "whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses" it kind of makes me feel like it is just an ancient version of 50 shades of grey.



FireFeathers said:


> I have no words.
> 
> Imbreeding breeds serious genetic issues- Not just fourth round, it breeds first round as well - you're assuming the people breeding together are without fault. Without any major genetic problems, by your 2nd or 3rd round, you'll get a line so weak and susceptible to a large round of genetic defects that the likelyhood of infertility is fairly high.  I like this argument that for evolution, imbreeding needs to exist- when it's the opposite; we get diversity and evolutionary gains from breeding with different lines.  If you breed the same thing, you get the same result.  For comparison  compare any endangered species that's kept alive by imbreeding. The result is infertility until the line wipes out, they make huge effort to divisify the limited lines left so that doesn't happen.



Of course it creates issues. But that isn't what this thread is about. We are talking about why it is supposedly immoral. And as long as the couple is watching out for that (getting their genes checked, adopting instead of having their own child etc) I really don't see a problem.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> What was God's opinion of that?


Dude.  You're talking about the same bible where biblically god populated the earth with only two people and then repopulated it with only noah's immediate family.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2013)

FireFeathers said:


> I have no words.
> 
> Imbreeding breeds serious genetic issues- Not just fourth round, it breeds first round as well - you're assuming the people breeding together are without fault. Without any major genetic problems, by your 2nd or 3rd round, you'll get a line so weak and susceptible to a large round of genetic defects that the likelyhood of infertility is fairly high.  I like this argument that for evolution, imbreeding needs to exist- when it's the opposite; we get diversity and evolutionary gains from breeding with different lines.  If you breed the same thing, you get the same result.  For comparison  compare any endangered species that's kept alive by imbreeding. The result is infertility until the line wipes out, they make huge effort to divisify the limited lines left so that doesn't happen.



I was trawling through the wikipedia article on inbreeding, not a fantastic source I know, and it appears studies on iceland showed that limited amounts of inbreeding, which were unavoidable on the island, did appear to boost the success of breeding populations. 

However swedish wolves at a population of ~250 suffer severe problems as do Florida's cougar population of ~70

It seems that a substantial non incestuous population has to exist if any 'benefits' from inbreeding are not to be overshadowed by phenomenal risk.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Jan 10, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> Spiders are creepy.
> 
> Let's get rid of all the things we hate. :V



I hate guns. :V
had to go there...


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Of course it creates issues. But that isn't what this thread is about. We are talking about why it is supposedly immoral. And as long as the couple is watching out for that (getting their genes checked, adopting instead of having their own child etc) I really don't see a problem.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## skyelar (Jan 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Still illegal.



FFS, really?


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 11, 2013)

TL;DR of this thread: Heterosexual incest is bad because people might have babies and no other reasons, which means gay incest is perfectly fine.


----------



## Rilvor (Jan 11, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Incest is only immoral because of the "ew gross" factor.
> 
> One could argue about genetic mutations, diseases, and all that but that's pretty hypocritical given that there's more of a chance for a woman over 40 to have a kid with Down's than it is for a brother and sister to have a kid with some genetic defect. Now if it's frequent among families or a parent/child conception then it's more likely but still we don't screen everyone to determine a kid's defect possibility so why do it only with incest?


This smacks of a straw man to me. You're using something else to try and invalidate the very serious risks associated by appealing.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jan 11, 2013)

Hey I just fucked my brother...
but that's ok to you people cuz we are in love :V


----------



## valia_wolfie (Jan 11, 2013)

Eh o-o personally, I'm against doing it myself.  (Even put in the situation of a cousin not being by blood related, still doesn't feel right.) 
So it would be whatever the people's morals are. I think most immediate family incest would be unhealthy for the child.  With cousins and such, it was done to keep pure bloodlines for the royal people anyways.
But I agree with you on that, >w> if two people love each other, and it doesn't risk anyone elses or their health. I have no problem with it. 
Alabama has it legalized anyways xD I think. And anyone who's gonna do it, love being the main subject of it, they are very likely to do it regardless of laws. It'll just be behind closed doors and it's an uneeded extra strain to an otherwise healthy relationship. >w>


----------



## Dreaming (Jan 11, 2013)

"What happens behind closed doors" comes to mind

If that's what they're into then so be it. As long as it's harming no one else then eh


----------



## Xaerun (Jan 11, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Hey I just fucked my brother...
> but that's ok to you people cuz we are in love :V


I'm not sure whether or not you're trolling at a really low effort and quality level (edit: and don't really care). Either way.






Speaking more generally, let's try to keep the big-boy pants on and discuss a reasonably interesting question without :V every two or three posts. Thanks in advance.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Jan 11, 2013)

The libertarian in me wants to say, as long as they're of age and not spawning kids, let them do what they want.

The part of me that daydreams about taking molotovs to high income neighborhoods wants to say that if he ever encountered people that did it I'd likely be put in jail for no fewer than 5 felonies.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 11, 2013)

Jashwa said:


> TL;DR of this thread: Heterosexual incest is bad because people might have babies and no other reasons, which means gay incest is perfectly fine.



The baby part doesn't even have to be bad.
And yes, there is nothin' wrong with gay incest. Just like there is nothing wrong with straight incest.



d.batty said:


> Hey I just fucked my brother...
> but that's ok to you people cuz we are in love :V



What about having smecks with twins? Would that be ok as well?



valia_wolfie said:


> Eh o-o personally, I'm against doing it myself.  (Even put in the situation of a cousin not being by blood related, still doesn't feel right.)
> So it would be whatever the people's morals are. I think most immediate family incest would be unhealthy for the child.  With cousins and such, it was done to keep pure bloodlines for the royal people anyways.



Finding something to be gross isn't part of your morals though. Again, for something to be morally wrong the result of it has to be bad. And as long as an incestous couple is doing everything they can to prevent their child from being a horrible mutant then there is nothing wrong with it at all. It's nothing but a sociel stigma.


----------



## Saiko (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Dude.  You're talking about the same bible where biblically god populated the earth with only two people and then repopulated it with only noah's immediate family.


Didn't Abraham marry his half-sister?

Most confusing book ever. Lol


----------



## TeenageAngst (Jan 11, 2013)

"Then Cain and Abel they begat,
And they begat all of the rest of us,
Which means they must have been incestuous,
...
I'm gonna have to pray about that!"

Oh Roy Zimmerman, your old stuff is glorious.


----------



## BRN (Jan 11, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> What about having smecks with twins? Would that be ok as well?




That's not sex, that's masturbation! #oldiebutgoldie


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 11, 2013)

SIX said:


> That's not sex, that's masturbation! #oldiebutgoldie



No no no! Not with your twin sister/brother, but having sex with twins! A threeway with them :3


----------



## BRN (Jan 11, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> No no no! Not with your twin sister/brother, but having sex with twins! A threeway with them :3




Hot.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 11, 2013)

SIX said:


> Hot.



:3


----------



## Saiko (Jan 11, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> No no no! Not with your twin sister/brother, but having sex with twins! A threeway with them :3


Best trade-names opportunity for the twins ever.


----------



## Venu.Shade (Jan 11, 2013)

oh god Twin-cest..... i have had my yaoi fantasies tainted with that.. curse you Ouron High School Host Club.

in other news.. yea.. Bible is THE MOST CONFUSING THING EVER
and i completely forgot Cain and Able reproduced.. which means back then they either had kids asexually, were fully functioning hermaphrodites, god spawned more people, OR gay sex produced magical man-love babies

the last option might be why some idiots who are homophobic think homosexuals can or will reproduce :I
sure, they can have someone combine the DNA of one with a donor egg and have a kid that way (or with donor sperm) but still..


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

DarknessFlame said:


> oh god Twin-cest..... i have had my yaoi fantasies tainted with that.. curse you Ouron High School Host Club.
> 
> in other news.. yea.. Bible is THE MOST CONFUSING THING EVER
> and i completely forgot Cain and Able reproduced.. which means back then they either had kids asexually, were fully functioning hermaphrodites, god spawned more people, OR gay sex produced magical man-love babies
> ...


Or one of them banged their mom or they had a sister and banged her.


----------



## Venu.Shade (Jan 11, 2013)

i think they supposedly lived 100+ years so anything is possible..


----------



## valia_wolfie (Jan 11, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Finding something to be gross isn't part of your morals though. Again, for something to be morally wrong the result of it has to be bad. And as long as an incestous couple is doing everything they can to prevent their child from being a horrible mutant then there is nothing wrong with it at all. It's nothing but a sociel stigma.



True enough o-o 
It can't really be said to be wrong if both are happy and the results aren't terrible. 
I wouldn't look down on someone for it anyways, just wouldn't think to do the same. 
And that could just be a matter of preference I shpose.


----------



## PapayaShark (Jan 11, 2013)

As long as its consensual and they are of age and aren't making babies, I don't really care.


But its still kind of weird.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 11, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> This smacks of a straw man to me. You're using something else to try and invalidate the very serious risks associated by appealing.



No. It's just the argument doesn't make sense. If people are so concerned about diseases then they'd do the same thing with elder women and probably people that have tons of kids or people that know they have a disease. Why is it not immoral for THEM to have children but incest is bad because the kid has a slimmer chance of having twelve toes? Shouldn't we also make smoking during pregnancy illegal too, now?

If people are going to scream "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", how about seriously thinking of the children?



DarknessFlame said:


> oh god Twin-cest..... i have had my yaoi  fantasies tainted with that.. curse you Ouron High School Host Club.
> 
> in other news.. yea.. Bible is THE MOST CONFUSING THING EVER
> and i completely forgot Cain and Able reproduced.. which means back then  they either had kids asexually, were fully functioning hermaphrodites,  god spawned more people, OR gay sex produced magical man-love babies
> ...



Because you probably haven't read your bible all that well. Adam and  Eve had more than just Cain and Abel for one, Two, Adam and Eve weren't  labelled as the ONLY humans created, just the FIRST. For another, when  Cain killed Abel God said that he was going to put a mark on him as  punishment. Cain protested that other people will want to kill him  because they'll know he did something bad. God said that anyone that  would kill him would be cursed as well.


----------



## Kazooie (Jan 11, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Shouldn't we also make smoking during pregnancy illegal too, now?


Not sure about smoking, but I would certainly consider drinking while pregnant ludicrously irresponsible and immoral. That said, over here we have signs _*everywhere*_ that state _"Don't drink while pregnant, you stupid idiot"_


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 11, 2013)

DarknessFlame said:


> i think they supposedly lived 100+ years so anything is possible..



They lived 100+ years because they are all fake :3 Fake people can live forever, real people after roughly 80 years. Some are a little more lucky though.



PapayaShark said:


> But its still kind of weird.



Why?



Aleu said:


> No. It's just the argument doesn't make sense. If people are so concerned about diseases then they'd do the same thing with elder women and probably people that have tons of kids or people that know they have a disease. Why is it not immoral for THEM to have children but incest is bad because the kid has a slimmer chance of having twelve toes? Shouldn't we also make smoking during pregnancy illegal too, now?



The chance that a kid might have down syndrome rises exponentionally with the age of the mother. At age 40 the risk is over 1%, at 45 it's already at 5%.
Should me make it illegal for older women to reproduce? 



Aleu said:


> Because you probably haven't read your bible all that well. Adam and  Eve had more than just Cain and Abel for one, Two, Adam and Eve weren't  labelled as the ONLY humans created, just the FIRST. For another, when  Cain killed Abel God said that he was going to put a mark on him as  punishment. Cain protested that other people will want to kill him  because they'll know he did something bad. God said that anyone that  would kill him would be cursed as well.



I fail to see how this is relevant in any way. People interprete stories in different ways, we aren't talking about facts here afterall.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

That's a good point Aleu had about smoking while pregnant.  Smoking while pregnant will change the unborn child's brain chemistry and can already give the child addiction to nicotine.  If you smoke while pregnant and when the child grows up it makes it ungodly difficult for the child to resist since they were born already addicted to nicotine.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 11, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I fail to see how this is relevant in any way. *People interprete stories in different ways, we aren't talking about facts here afterall.*



Yet people treat these "stories" as you put it, as facts.



CannonFodder said:


> That's a good point Aleu had about smoking  while pregnant.  Smoking while pregnant will change the unborn child's  brain chemistry and can already give the child addiction to nicotine.   If you smoke while pregnant and when the child grows up it makes it  ungodly difficult for the child to resist since they were born already  addicted to nicotine.



Bullshit. Mom smoked while pregnant with me and I can't bare the smell of cig smoke and nore can my little brother. Mom smoked while carrying all four of us. I don't believe that crap for one second.


----------



## BRN (Jan 11, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Yet people treat these "stories" as you put it, as facts.



That's just silly - they're supposed to have faith, that's all. No matter what they believe and have faith in, if they aren't open to the idea that it might not be true, then that's close-mindedness. On the other hand, facts are all positively, empirically true. They can be proven to anyone who has doubts.

(
Person 1: I have a 1kg weight.
Person 2: I doubt you.
Person 1 places the 1kg weight on a scale.
Person 2: I cannot doubt my eyes. This must be a fact.
)


----------



## PapayaShark (Jan 11, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Yet people treat these "stories" as you put it, as facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Mom smoked while pregnant with me and I can't bare the smell of cig smoke and nore can my little brother. Mom smoked while carrying all four of us. I don't believe that crap for one second.



Doesn't mean mothers should smoke while pregnant just because nothing happened to you. Thats like saying its okay for pregnant women to get drunk because my friend didn't get fas.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 11, 2013)

SIX said:


> That's just silly - they're supposed to have faith, that's all. No matter what they believe and have faith in, if they aren't open to the idea that it might not be true, then that's close-mindedness. On the other hand, facts are all positively, empirically true. They can be proven to anyone who has doubts.
> 
> (
> Person 1: I have a 1kg weight.
> ...



That doesn't change the fact that a lot of religious people still treat what the bible says as FACT.



PapayaShark said:


> Doesn't mean mothers should smoke while  pregnant just because nothing happened to you. Thats like saying its  okay for pregnant women to get drunk because my friend didn't get  fas.



CF said it like it was an absolute fact that smoking WILL cause the child to become addicted. There is guarantee that will happen. 

I do not believe that a child will get addicted to cigs inside the whomb, that is about as likely as someone becoming addicted to smoking by passive smoking because some dweeb is sat next to them with a fag on the go.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Bullshit. Mom smoked while pregnant with me and I can't bare the smell of cig smoke and nore can my little brother. Mom smoked while carrying all four of us. I don't believe that crap for one second.


I'm not saying every last pregnant woman that smokes, drinks or partakes in unhealthy activities will have children addicted to whatever it is.  I'm saying that if a pregnant woman does so and their child expiriments with it it'll be much more difficult for the individual to overcome it cause from birth their brain will be wired with a disposition towards taking the substance.

Short version:  It's bad to smoke, drink or do drugs while pregnant.


----------



## BRN (Jan 11, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> That doesn't change the fact that a lot of religious people still treat what the bible says as FACT.



I don't really see what that proves regarding anything, though. It's ostensibly _not_ a fact; what you really mean is that a lot of religious people seek authority from the bible.

I hate to use the same old argument, but a fact requires the capacity to be proven.


----------



## Kazooie (Jan 11, 2013)

SIX said:


> I don't really see what that proves regarding anything, though. It's obstensively _not_ a fact; what you really mean is that a lot of religious people seek authority from the bible.


Eh, people genuinely believe that the bible is "fact", more because they don't understand or respect the importance of evidence. I guess it sort of does become synonymous with "authority" at that point, but damned if you can communicate that idea with some of 'em.


----------



## BRN (Jan 11, 2013)

Kazooie said:


> Eh, people genuinely believe that the bible is "fact", more because they don't understand or respect the importance of evidence. I guess it sort of does become synonymous with "authority" at that point, but damned if you can communicate that idea with some of 'em.



Although it remains off-topic, I hope this helps clear up the distinction!


Spoiler: Youtube video



[yt]5wV_REEdvxo[/yt]



Doesn't this whole argument send us away from the main point, though? Cain and Abel this or that, no matter what the truth is, it doesn't change the outcome of the question of present-day morality.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 11, 2013)

DarknessFlame said:


> oh god Twin-cest..... i have had my yaoi fantasies tainted with that.. curse you Ouron High School Host Club.
> 
> in other news.. yea.. Bible is THE MOST CONFUSING THING EVER
> and i completely forgot Cain and Able reproduced.. which means back then they either had kids asexually, were fully functioning hermaphrodites, god spawned more people, OR gay sex produced magical man-love babies
> ...



If I am correct eventually the 'righteous' people migrate to a different land that is already populated. 

It's a legend anyway, so it's a bit like saying the norse gods of ragnorak aren't practicising good hygene when they use intestines to bind their enemies to trees.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

I think one of the big reasons people are against incest is because it forms the basis of a kind of caveat. We're not entirely certain that someone who wants to have a relationship with their mother, brother, father, sister, etc., weren't already doing so to begin with, and that's to say they weren't already doing it beneath the radar well before they reached legal age. Than there's the issue of regularizing it, meaning that if it's in the families behavior to allow siblings sexual relationships, it might also normalize the conduct of adults to children seeing that whatever sexual relations did take place originally are now under the power of two authority figures who can manipulate and control the dynamics such that it benefits them.

Sorry for the run-on sentence. Anyway! Another big problem with the argument in favor of incest is that whether or not it's arguers realize it yet, you're already defending inter-family relationships. Now, do I have a problem with "two consenting adults" making up their minds about whatever? No. However if you've ever learned to troll sick fucks, you'll notice two things: public exhibitionism and incest are two big links that used to make up NAMBLA's arsenal. Why? Because it allows us to normalize a sexual use of our bodies outside the context of law, rather it's rendered instead as "natural". I'm not bashing nudity, or nude beaches, or being naked in general, nor am I trying to bash two consenting adults.

I'm just saying that the argument of incest is a mine-field that we should tread carefully. Because if you'll notice well before you got here, since the 60's and 70's, those mines were planted by some very different people who were hoping that the general public would tie issues together. And if you're not careful with your wording, and your argument, however right it is, it will open the door to worse things. Not a slippery slope argument, but a point of advocacy: perfect conditions never happen.

How then will argue in favor of incest? Supposing it doesn't hurt anyone, but you know it will some. How do you approach a problem like this when trying to get society from Point A (close-minded) to Point B (open minded), knowing people fail along the way?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

Whoa whoa whoa hold up.  Bambi are you seriously going down the path of trying to passively link incest to pedophilia?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 11, 2013)

On the subject of 'two consenting adults' clearly 'two' is superfluous and 'within reasonable circumstances' is necessary.


----------



## Bliss (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> We're not entirely certain that someone who wants to have a relationship with their mother, brother, father, sister, etc., weren't already doing so to begin with, and *that's to say they weren't already doing it beneath the radar well before they reached legal age*.


That is illegal regardless of laws on sexual relations of consenting adults.



> How do you approach a problem like this when trying to get society from Point A (close-minded) to Point B (open minded), knowing people fail along the way?


None of our corcern.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Whoa whoa whoa hold up.  Bambi are you seriously going down the path of trying to passively link incest to pedophilia?


According to your fallacy of extension, that might be.

However if you go back and read, and perhaps re-address the issue that I brought up rather than taking offense to the idea that socially, incest is usually an issue that's entirely loaded from the get go, I'm sure this will clear up any and all misunderstanding.





Lizzie said:


> That is illegal regardless of laws on sexual  relations of consenting adults.


Yes, but how would you know it is  illegal if you've already established the right to keep it in the  family?



Lizzie said:


> None of our corcern.


Why did you mentally  shut down like that? I'll reiterate my question. How do you argue in  favor of incest knowing that the legal and social conditions aren't  perfect? Are we sure that's none of our concern? I'd at least like to  request that the "sexual freedom" bandwagon know it's destination before  it gets there.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> On the subject of 'two consenting adults' clearly 'two' is superfluous and 'within reasonable circumstances' is necessary.


Alright how about this then, "all parties involved are consenting to sexual interactions with each other and no party involved has been coherced into said acts and no party involved has started said interactions with one another before legal consenting age for sex and if they did they are within legal difference to start said act without it being illegal, such as if a country allows for sex to take part in those under the age of 18 are within two years of each other and for this example let's say one party member is 17 and the other is 18."


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Alright how about this then, "all parties involved are consenting to sexual interactions with each other and no party involved has been coherced into said acts and no party involved has started said interactions with one another before legal consenting age for sex and if they did they are within legal difference to start said act without it being illegal, such as if a country allows for sex to take part in those under the age of 18 are within two years of each other and for this example let's say one party member is 17 and the other is 18."


How do you deal with the age of consent state per state?

Is someone, at the age of fourteen, going to join his older brother or sister in becoming a sex offender when the two have sexual relations together?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Alright how about this then, "all parties involved are consenting to sexual interactions with each other and no party involved has been coherced into said acts and no party involved has started said interactions with one another before legal consenting age for sex and if they did they are within legal difference to start said act without it being illegal, such as if a country allows for sex to take part in those under the age of 18 are within two years of each other and for this example let's say one party member is 17 and the other is 18."




The obcessive compulsive within is satiated.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> How do you deal with the age of consent state per state?


Dude, don't ask just don't.  If you want to know american laws it's better to just look it up cause we'll be here all day trying to explain the state by state differences as well as the federal laws and the maximum and minimum amounts of potential time served.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Dude, don't ask just don't.  If you want to know american laws it's better to just look it up cause we'll be here all day trying to explain the state by state differences as well as the federal laws and the maximum and minimum amounts of potential time served.


Well, this just proves the original point that I was trying to make: incest is a way more nuanced and difficult issue to argue than others have made you believe. 

Just a word of warning, when you walk into the argument of: "Hey! X_thing is a good idea, it gets me horny!" /Gilbert Gottfried, or "Gee golly, Mr. Smith! Y_thing sounds good in idealization because ideally nobody can do anything wrong in my idealized version of it because it's kept secured in an intellectual vacuum!", pay attention to your wants stepping in the way you thinking critically.

Not saying you, or just you, hell, I'll say it for me. Impossibly hard as it is, in order for us to get good things, we have to be our own best ideas worst critics.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Alright how about this then, "all parties involved are consenting to sexual interactions with each other and no party involved has been coherced into said acts and no party involved has started said interactions with one another before legal consenting age for sex and if they did they are within legal difference to start said act without it being illegal, such as if a country allows for sex to take part in those under the age of 18 are within two years of each other and for this example let's say one party member is 17 and the other is 18."



Why does age gap have to be a factor? If they are both above legal age of consent in their area of residence, what does age gap matter?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 11, 2013)

I'm not sure why people skipped over when someone mentioned risks to future offspring and other social patterns of behavior it was somehow not connected to  "not morally wrong" aka "immoral"

Potential dangers to others is what governs our morals. So when people are straw manning "Well what about other defects/smoking/and other potential damaging effects to children" it' confusing. Because it's not what we're talking about illegality - but immoral.

"Not in my bedroom, not my concern" but doesn't answer to other family units that it could be affecting. It's not just about whether or not someone gets "knocked up" but other psychological harm it can inflict.


----------



## Bliss (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Yes, but how would you know it is  illegal if you've already established the right to keep it in the  family?


Because I said so in the very same sentence. _Duh._ :U



> Why did you mentally  shut down like that? I'll reiterate my question. How do you argue in  favor of incest knowing that the legal and social conditions aren't  perfect? Are we sure that's none of our concern? I'd at least like to  request that the "sexual freedom" bandwagon know it's destination before  it gets there.


Conditions are never perfect. The thing established, presumably, is that a personal disfavour - the 'yuck factor', if you will - is not a valid reason to forbid an act of two consenting adults.

Hypothetical slippery slopes are another issue entirely. It is irrelevant to the very next stop.


----------



## skyelar (Jan 11, 2013)

Talking about this with a friend earlier and he brought up a really good point- Consenting adults will find a way to have sex with each other if they want to. Having laws against incest can be a good thing as those laws will (more often than not, hopefully) only be brought up in criminal events. 
The example he used was a father forcing himself on his daughter. He gets tried with rape AND incest. Double the punishment for wrongdoing.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 11, 2013)

skyelar said:


> Talking about this with a friend earlier and he brought up a really good point- Consenting adults will find a way to have sex with each other if they want to. Having laws against incest can be a good thing as those laws will (more often than not, hopefully) only be brought up in criminal events.
> The example he used was a father forcing himself on his daughter. He gets tried with rape AND incest. Double the punishment for wrongdoing.



Laws against nonconsensual events are the ones which should deal with those events. It's not legally better to praise other laws for getting involved if they have no actual use of their own- this evidently being a controversial matter among the posters here. 

For instance it's like praising an anti nudity law when a nude burgler robs a bank.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> Because I said so in the very same sentence. _Duh._ :U


You're not getting out of this so easily.

My point was that the people who want to normalize and welcome incest weren't asking the question of when it becomes mother, son; father, daughter, how is incest *then* still acceptable when that's an immediate risk? Incest after all involves more than just what we believe would be peers of equal age.

Now, you coiled out of that question by offering that such conditions would already be illegal to begin with, but then answer me this: how would you ever find that out when if incest was ever to be accepted legally and socially, the parents in a relationship, or a much older sibling, already have the advantage of ambushing the victim by keeping their abuse secret until they're eighteen? Stockholm Syndrome, anybody?

And the answer to that question, "how would you ever find that out", Lizzie? Is you'd find out, either after the fact when they're good and traumatized, or when the victim chose to intervene in their own circumstances; worst case scenario is when that abuse took it's toll in the form of taking their life, than everyone would know, but too late. Hence my point about rationalizing incests conditions as perfect. People need to be thinking about why bandwagoning the issue isn't such a good idea to begin with, and why some would consider incest to be "immoral".



Lizzie said:


> Conditions are never perfect.


Than acknowledge the conditions aren't perfect.

How would you, let's play this game: how would *you* convince me that incest is 'okay' knowing the risks? You can't just bank on the inbetween of, "Durr, consenting adults!" when there's already the presented issue of legitimizing abuse. So, what's your "pro" argument for incest, without invoking the age of consent because as we've proved already, that's flawed enough to want us to keep some "moral" distance from the act itself, not to mention legal distance.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> You're not getting out of this so easily.
> 
> My point was that the people who want to normalize and welcome incest  weren't asking the question of when it becomes mother, son; father,  daughter, how is incest *then* still acceptable when that's an immediate  risk? Incest after all involves more than just what we believe would be  peers of equal age.
> 
> ...


So you are saying regardless of the persons' age they are automatically pedophiles and rapists?. . . I got to ask do you even know what a pedophile or a rapist is?

The point me and Lizzie are trying to make is your logic is like bill  cosby going, "if zippidy pop becomes legal then snazzle frazzle will  stopple".  It's good for hype and such, but I've been looking at your  post and I'm still going "dafuq did I just read?".  I would have to be higher than a kit to understand how this even begins to make any sense.


----------



## Bliss (Jan 11, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Potential dangers to others is what governs  our morals. So when people are straw manning "Well what about other  defects/smoking/and other potential damaging effects to children" it'  confusing. Because it's not what we're talking about illegality - but  immoral.


Would it not be _immoral_ to put people who do a comparable and informed violation as another group of people to a different position, namely criminal responsibility, merely because of their degree of kinship?



Bambi said:


> My point was that the people who want to normalize and welcome incest  weren't asking the question of when it becomes mother, son; father,  daughter, how is incest *then* still acceptable when that's an immediate  risk? Incest after all involves more than just what we believe would be  peers of equal age.


I do not particarly see that in a different light from sibling-sibling incest.



> Now, you coiled out of that question by offering that such conditions  would already be illegal to begin with, but then answer me this: how  would you ever find that out when if incest was ever to be accepted  legally and socially, the parents in a relationship, or a much older  sibling, already have the advantage of ambushing the victim by keeping  their abuse secret until they're eighteen? Stockholm Syndrome, anybody?
> 
> And the answer to that question, "how would you ever find that out",  Lizzie? Is you'd find out, either after the fact when they're good and  traumatized, or when the victim chose to intervene in their own  circumstances; worst case scenario is when that abuse took it's toll in  the form of taking their life, than everyone would know, but too late.  Hence my point about rationalizing incests conditions as perfect. People  need to be thinking about why bandwagoning the issue isn't such a good  idea to begin with, and why some would consider incest to be "immoral".


Sexual abuse of children by their parents is an issue already. How do we find about it now? How would it be _any different_?

If a history of abuse was revealed after the relationship became lawful it would still be, as other crimes, prosecuted as permitted by legal prescription.



> Than acknowledge the conditions aren't perfect.
> 
> How would you, let's play this game: how would *you* convince me that  incest is 'okay' knowing the risks? You can't just bank on the inbetween  of, "Durr, consenting adults!" when there's already the presented issue  of legitimizing abuse. So, what's your "pro" argument for incest,  without invoking the age of consent because as we've proved already,  that's flawed enough to want us to keep some "moral" distance from the  act itself, not to mention legal distance.


I do not know how I can convince you because... well, honestly, I just do not see your argument as very valid or relevant to begin with from where I am coming from. Nor am I trying to legitimise abuse; others are entitled to whatever opinion they may have.

Watcha gonna do?


----------



## Saiko (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> My point was that the people who want to normalize and welcome incest weren't asking the question of when it becomes mother, son; father, daughter, how is incest *then* still acceptable when that's an immediate risk? Incest after all involves more than just what we believe would be peers of equal age.
> 
> Now, you coiled out of that question by offering that such conditions would already be illegal to begin with, but then answer me this: how would you ever find that out when if incest was ever to be accepted legally and socially, the parents in a relationship, or a much older sibling, already have the advantage of ambushing the victim by keeping their abuse secret until they're eighteen? Stockholm Syndrome, anybody?
> 
> And the answer to that question, "how would you ever find that out", Lizzie? Is you'd find out, either after the fact when they're good and traumatized, or when the victim chose to intervene in their own circumstances; worst case scenario is when that abuse took it's toll in the form of taking their life, than everyone would know, but too late. Hence my point about rationalizing incests conditions as perfect. People need to be thinking about why bandwagoning the issue isn't such a good idea to begin with, and why some would consider incest to be "immoral".


Do the combined laws against incest and abuse necessarily prevent such things? And would legalizing incest result in higher rates of abuse? Oftentimes the law serves as empowerment to punish more than a deterrent, and I imagine incest laws have little to no effect if neither abuse laws nor common morality do. And as you conceeded, in the case of legalized incest, abuse would still be illegal. Additionally the "age of consent" stipulation would still define this form of incest as illegal and abusive. The legality of your proposed scenario would be no different from the status quo, as would the crime's performance, effects, and symptoms.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> So you are saying regardless of the persons' age they are automatically pedophiles and rapists?. . . I got to ask do you even know what a pedophile or a rapist is?


Again with the extension fallacy, and now an ad hominem! <3



CannonFodder said:


> The point me and Lizzie are trying to make is your logic is like bill  cosby going, "if zippidy pop becomes legal then snazzle frazzle will  stopple".  It's good for hype and such, but I've been looking at your  post and I'm still going "dafuq did I just read?".  I would have to be higher than a kit to understand how this even begins to make any sense.


Now imagine this from my perspective. 

I've got two people who are vehemently in favor of incest, perhaps even curious as to why some people view it as immoral. I gave reasons. What else am I to do at this point? Can we not acknowledge that maybe not everything behind "moral" is a consideration exclusively reserved for arguments of repugnance? Could it also be that there are psychological reasons instead? Which was exactly my point oh so many posts above. Sorry if it's above you. I can't change that. 


Lizzie said:


> I do not particarly see that in a different light from sibling-sibling incest.


Which is my point, Lizzie.

Since  you've just blatantly admitted that you make no difference between  father, daughter; mother, son incest in comparison to the "incest"  CannonFodder defined which was "consenting adults who are of age", isn't  it enough to suggest that some abusers wouldn't also? What, you think some  kids after turning 18 would just spontaneously say, "Oh, by the way, I  fucked my dad and LOVE it?" That if they might, remember that that  attraction started somewhere is my point.

Enter the case I've  made for incest being a bad idea; if son's attracted to mother, are we  really sure they're going to wait until he's 18? No, we can't be sure,  hence my point about it being ... again, a bad  idea.





Lizzie said:


> Sexual abuse of children by their parents is  an issue already. How do we find about it now? How would it be _any different_?


My point again!

So,  is it so much to ask that we don't give any parents or legal guardians  the potential to abuse their right of attorney, or counsel, over someone  well beyond they turn 18?



Lizzie said:


> I do not know how I can convince you because...  well,


"Well", you can't convince me because you obviously haven't  thought it through beyond, "Yeah, this sounds good. I kinda like this."  lol


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Again with the extension fallacy, and now an ad hominem! <3
> 
> Now imagine this from my perspective.
> 
> I've got two people who are vehemently in favor of incest, perhaps even curious as to why some people view it as immoral. I gave reasons. What else am I to do at this point? Can we not acknowledge that maybe not everything behind "moral" is a consideration exclusively reserved for arguments of repugnance? Could it also be that there are psychological reasons instead? Which was exactly my point oh so many posts above. Sorry if it's above you. I can't change that.


I can read what you are getting at, but the problem is that you are basically insinuating that if two people were in a incestual relationship that it started before one of them was of legal age or that it's because of Stockholm syndrome or psychological abuse.

You misunderstand my perspective.  I simply do not think a law should exist on the premise of someone going, "eww that's gross! Make it illegal!"  If someone isn't being abused or raped and both people are of legal age then that's their deal.  I do not support legislating other people's sex lives if they are of legal age and nobody is being coerced into it.

*

The reason why we are disagreeing with you isn't because we are in favor of incest or out to legalize it, it's cause you jumped the shark.*


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I can read what you are getting at, but the problem is that you are basically insinuating that if two people were in a incestual relationship that it started before one of them was of legal age or that it's because of Stockholm syndrome or psychological abuse.


No, I am simply asking for that consideration.

I also did not disagree with two consenting adults, but than further explained and also asked, what constitutes two consenting adults? Mother, son, when the boy turns 18? We get: brother, sister, cousin, sister, brother, etc., but what about the other halves of incest so to speak? Should we make laws on the books against parental abuse, or even spouse to child attractions just in case?



CannonFodder said:


> You misunderstand my perspective.  I simply do not think a law should exist on the premise of someone going, "eww that's gross! Make it illegal!"


Which I didn't, just to clarify.  





CannonFodder said:


> If someone isn't being abused or raped and both people are of legal age then that's their deal.  I do not support legislating other people's sex lives if they are of legal age and nobody is being coerced into it.


Yeah, which is where I brought up the part about perfection conditions. Those are perfect conditions; I am saying there's a flaw with how we define incest overall, and how its actually looked at outside of, "This is what incest is to me, and this is only how it could work."*


CannonFodder said:



			The reason why we are disagreeing with you isn't because we are in favor of incest or out to legalize it, it's cause you jumped the shark.
		
Click to expand...

*Uhm ... a TV Trope?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> No, I am simply asking for that consideration.
> 
> I also did not disagree with two consenting adults, but than further explained and also asked, what constitutes two consenting adults? Mother, son, when the boy turns 18? We get: brother, sister, cousin, sister, brother, etc., but what about the other halves of incest so to speak? Should we make laws on the books against parental abuse, or even spouse to child attractions just in case?
> 
> Which I didn't, just to clarify.  Yeah, which is where I brought up the part about perfection conditions. Those are perfect conditions; I am saying there's a flaw with how we define incest overall, and how its actually looked at outside of, "This is what incest is to me, and this is only how it could work."*Uhm ... a TV Trope?*


*
There's already laws against abuse.

You are using the phrase "perfect scenario" wrong; a correct use of "perfect scenario" is when physicists use physics formulas as though the machine or such is working in a frictionless vacuum while ignoring potential outside forces that may throw off the amount of force needed to impart work upon a object.  That's a example of a perfect scenario.  You're using "perfect scenario" as a buzz word.

I don't see how "above legal age to have sex and consenting" is some  mythological perfect scenario.  There's a ton of people in the world  above 18 who consent to having sex.*


----------



## Bliss (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Since  you've just blatantly admitted that *you make no difference between  father, daughter; mother, son incest in comparison to the "incest"  CannonFodder defined which was "consenting adults who are of age"*, isn't  it enough to suggest that some abusers wouldn't also? What, you think some  kids after turning 18 would just spontaneously say, "Oh, by the way, I  fucked my dad and LOVE it?" That if they might, remember that that  attraction started somewhere is my point.


Is there a contradiction we are not aware of?



> Enter the case I've  made for incest being a bad idea; if son's attracted to mother, are we  really sure they're going to wait until he's 18? No, we can't be sure,  hence my point about it being ... again, a bad  idea.


Indeed, we cannot be sure. Then again, it is not an issue directly related to - pardon having to repeat it - relations of consenting adults of age.

If anything happens before a set age of majority, there is a consensus of it being as wrong as any other sexual relationship alike. Beginning afterwards it would be none of our business.



> So,  is it so much to ask that we don't give any parents or legal guardians  the potential to abuse their right of attorney, or counsel, over someone  well beyond they turn 18?


Absolutely not, because _no one here is proposing such a thing_.



> "Well", you can't convince me because you obviously haven't  thought it through beyond, "Yeah, this sounds good. I kinda like this."  lol


I thought and I did not find anything objectionable. You did not add to it.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Uhh. . . Dude, there's already laws against abuse.  Also I don't see how "above legal age to have sex and consenting" is some mythological perfect scenario.  There's a shit ton of people in the world above the 18 who consent to having sex.


And even though there's laws against abuse, you fail to see how allowing incest could indeed perpetuate, or even enable that kind of abuse (I've already explained how.) Yes, I am however saying that "above legal age to have sex and consenting" is the perfect scenario, only because it's previous authors refused to consider alternate ideas even flaws to their thoughts.



CannonFodder said:


> Also you are using the phrase "perfect scenario" wrong; a correct use of "perfect scenario" is when physicists use physics formulas as though the machine or such is working in a frictionless vacuum while ignoring potential outside forces that may throw off the amount of force needed to impart work upon a object.  That's a example of a perfect scenario.  Going "the people involved are at least 18 and consenting" is having the bar so low that if it was any lower people would just trip their feet on it.  You're using "perfect scenario" as a buzz word.


Excellent.

So, you've nothing more to add to this besides: retort 1, I'll insult him. Retort 2, I'll pretend that I "misunderstand" him. Oh, and finally, retort 3, I'll just insult his intelligence instead. Honestly, I am trying to improve your position by getting you to comprehend it's flaws.

Shall I spell them out to you in a point-by-point list?





Lizzie said:


> Is there a contradiction we are not aware of?
> 
> Indeed, we cannot be sure. Then again, it is not an issue directly  related to - pardon having to repeat it - relations of consenting adults  of age.
> 
> If anything happens before a set age of majority, there is a consensus  of it being as wrong as any other sexual relationship alike. Beginning  afterwards it would be none of our business.


Okay, so this is  clearly circular logic.

We've already established that mother,  son; father, daughter is out on the table. Do you, and answer me  honestly, believe that these attractions would just happen, right on the  minute to the hour that someone turned 18? Like, is it instanteous for  you, therefore deprived as to how those attractions might form?

Do you understand what I am getting at now? Why some people hesitate about incest?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> So, you've nothing more to add to this besides: retort 1, I'll insult him. Retort 2, I'll pretend that I "misunderstand" him. Oh, and finally, retort 3, I'll just insult his intelligence instead.


Where did I insult your intelligence or the sort?


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Where did I insult your intelligence or the sort?


This is the one that made me laugh the most, so it gets the honorable mention!





CannonFodder said:


> So you are saying regardless of the persons'  age they are automatically pedophiles and rapists?. . . I got to ask do  you even know what a pedophile or a rapist is?
> 
> The point me and Lizzie are trying to make is your logic is like bill   cosby going, "if zippidy pop becomes legal then snazzle frazzle will   stopple".  It's good for hype and such, but I've been looking at your   post and I'm still going "dafuq did I just read?".  I would have to be  higher than a kit to understand how this even begins to make any  sense.


I don't know.

It seems I invest a little bit more time into my thoughts, and you, can't and then ... resort to that? Least it's making me chuckle. 8)


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> This is the one that made me laugh the most, so it gets the honorable mention!


I said your logic didn't make any sense cause you were insinuating that incestuous couples are pedophiles or abusive or they are in a relationship cause of stockholm syndrome.

The "I would have to be  higher than a kit to understand how this even begins to make any  sense" is a joke about how whenever someone is on pot they think they can understand the world better or have some deep understanding of the world that nobody else has.  I wasn't calling you stupid, I was making a joke about pot.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I said your logic didn't make any sense cause you were insinuating that incestuous couples are pedophiles or abusive or they are in a relationship cause of stockholm syndrome.
> 
> The "I would have to be  higher than a kit to understand how this even begins to make any  sense." is a joke about how whenever someone is on pot they think they can understand the world better or have some deep understanding of the world that nobody else has.  I wasn't calling you stupid, I was making a joke that I would have to be on pot to think I had some deep understanding of the world and thus your point.


And now victim blaming.

Clearly all a misunderstanding! _Nothing to see here guys!_ 

Oh, by the way CannonFodder, I'd love for you to think about this for one second. Remember what I said below my alleged insinuation? I said, and I'm not going to quote myself exactly, something along the lines of: "be very careful how you argue in defense of incest", therefore establishing that the positions I suggested, quite broad actually but still relevant to the counter-point of "incest BAD", would more than likely be the thoughts of someone who disagreed with you? Try to think about that for a second.


----------



## Saiko (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> I also did not disagree with two consenting adults, but than further explained and also asked, what constitutes two consenting adults? Mother, son, when the boy turns 18? We get: brother, sister, cousin, sister, brother, etc., but what about the other halves of incest so to speak? Should we make laws on the books against parental abuse, or even spouse to child attractions just in case?
> 
> Yeah, which is where I brought up the part about perfection conditions. Those are perfect conditions; I am saying there's a flaw with how we define incest overall, and how its actually looked at outside of, "This is what incest is to me, and this is only how it could work."


From a legal perspective, that is precisely how it works. "Incest is defined as <x>." If my understanding is correct, typically incest is defined as sexual relations between individuals related more closely than first-cousin by birth, marriage, or adoption. Legalizing incest would mean these relations would by be by default irrelevant.

The key phrase is "by default." Due to the nature of incest, yes, you would have to have defined exceptions and stipulations. The notion of "age of consent" is one that currently exists, is quite simple, and is practical. Thus, it is simple to apply it to incest. "Sexual relations between persons closer than first-cousin by birth, marriage, or adoption where one participant is below the age of consent constitutes a <chosen class of crime>." This preserves the illegality of incest in all cases that would constitute child abuse concisely and unquestionably.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> And now victim blaming.


brain.system32 has crashed, press any key to continue


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

Saiko said:


> From a legal perspective, that is precisely how it works. "Incest is defined as <x>." If my understanding is correct, typically incest is defined as sexual relations between individuals related more closely than first-cousin by birth, marriage, or adoption. Legalizing incest would mean these relations would by be by default irrelevant.
> 
> The key phrase is "by default." Due to the nature of incest, yes, you would have to have defined exceptions and stipulations. The notion of "age of consent" is one that currently exists, is quite simple, and is practical. Thus, it is simple to apply it to incest. "Sexual relations between persons closer than first-cousin by birth, marriage, or adoption where one participant is below the age of consent constitutes a <chosen class of crime>." This preserves the illegality of incest in all cases that would constitute child abuse concisely and unquestionably.


Ah, solutions!

So, what would you say if someone thought that incest threatened the value system of the nuclear family? Now mind the actual point, I am saying it to bring up discussion; however, that's not my position.





CannonFodder said:


> brain.system32 has crashed press any key to continue


Oh, stop that CannonFodder. :V

You know that we - ...

a

You back yet?


----------



## Saiko (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Ah, solutions!
> 
> So, what would you say if someone thought that incest threatened the value system of the nuclear family? Now mind the actual point, I am saying it to bring up discussion; however, that's not my position.


All I did was reword what they said. :/

As for their argument... a value system beyond the constitution is of little legal concern or relevance unless it can be applied to properly amend that constitution. In such a case, the constitution must be amended before the system can be relevant to the legality of incest.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

Saiko said:


> All I did was reword what they said. :/


You actually said it first, believe it or not. 

That's why I skipped over it briefly, my apologies.



Saiko said:


> As for their argument... a value system beyond the constitution is of little legal concern or relevance unless it can be applied to properly amend that constitution. In such a case, the constitution must be amended before the system can be relevant to incest.


Expand on that, if you would.

I'd like to know more. That's if you've got the time.


----------



## Bliss (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Okay, so this is  clearly circular logic.


It takes desperate measures to argue against non-logic, perhaps. :V



> We've already established that mother,  son; father, daughter is out on the table. Do you, and answer me  honestly, believe that these attractions would just happen, right on the  minute to the hour that someone turned 18? Like, is it instanteous for  you, therefore deprived as to how those attractions might form?


It does not matter. We do not punish people for attractions but actions.

One could as well argue for pre-2003 sodomy laws in the US in that without them middle-aged men and (pre-)adolescent boys might hook up - as if a law ostracising homosexuals generally stopped them, was morally right or, evidently, even constitutional - and that it would become legal or acceptable. Neither is true or a valid argument.



> Do you understand what I am getting at now? Why some people hesitate about incest?


Very much. They should not; least for reasons shabby enough to be beaten with my _"Yeah, this sounds good. I kinda like this."_.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 11, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> It takes desperate measures to argue against non-logic, perhaps. :V


Maybe.

Looking back on it, I'll make sure not to brute force the counter-arguments before my abstract.



Lizzie said:


> It does not matter. We do not punish people for attractions but actions.


Over here, we do.

I like that we do because it forces people to consider (perhaps with excessive repetition) the flaws of their challenges, and how to adapt their opinions to the national mindset, even if it appears at large to be bigoted and cruel.



Lizzie said:


> One could as well argue for pre-2003 sodomy laws in the US in that without them middle-aged men and (pre-)adolescent boys might hook up - as if a law ostracising homosexuals generally stopped them, was morally right or, evidently, even constitutional - and that it would become legal or acceptable. Neither is true or a valid argument.


Exactly.



Lizzie said:


> Very much. They should not; least for reasons shabby enough to be beaten with my _"Yeah, this sounds good. I kinda like this."_.


*<3*


----------



## Bliss (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Over here, we do.


As do we.

Humanity has a selective mind, so I do not... mind.


----------



## Saiko (Jan 11, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Expand on that, if you would.
> 
> I'd like to know more. That's if you've got the time.


As you said, the opponent is concerned about the value system of the nuclear family.

To start, the notion of law requires the presence of a value system to determine what should be legal and what should be illegal. In the US (I can only speak for the US), this value system is our constitution. It defines what the government has the power to do and what it does not. Additionally it defines that we are equal and have rights. From this stems legal basis for concepts such as wrongfulness of theft and murder and thus the defining of such things as illegal.

To my knowledge, the nuclear family is not addressed in the constitution; and there is no means of deriving the conclusion that it is an inherent part of the document. If anything, the nuclear family and monogamy result from logistical practicality in a legal context, not from constitutional establishment. As such, the value system surrounding the nuclear family is irrelevant in a moral-legality context because the current value system that the law is based on does not include it. In order for the value system of the nuclear family to apply in this manner, it must also be a part of the value system that the law is based on. This requires amendment of the law's value system.

Currently, the nuclear family is not a part of the law's value system; but it is indeed a consequence of practicality. However, I have already addressed the fundamentals of the practical legalization of incest, so this context is also largely irrelevant.

EDIT:
Actually that last part isn't entirely correct. The fundamentals are easily made practical, but I still find the specifics near-impossible to implement - namely, cases of heterosexual, incestuous couples having sex and conceiving a child. Preserving protection against inbreeding, you have to distinguish between conception despite genuine attempts at contraception and conception from lack of contraception. Proving the latter case guilty would be problematic.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Jan 11, 2013)

It's immoral because it's a gateway to inbreeding, which is very bad.


----------



## Saiko (Jan 11, 2013)

lupinealchemist said:


> It's immoral because it's a gateway to inbreeding, which is very bad.


And alcohol is immoral because it's a gateway to DUI.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Jan 11, 2013)

Saiko said:


> And alcohol is immoral because it's a gateway to DUI.


I still find it gross.


----------



## Xaerun (Jan 11, 2013)

lupinealchemist said:


> I still find it gross.



Please, do tell us more.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 12, 2013)

lupinealchemist said:


> It's immoral because it's a gateway to inbreeding, which is very bad.



It doesn't HAVE to be. Besides, there are responsible people out there who wouldn't want to breed mutant babies.
Also, saying it is bad because it is a gateway to inbreeding is like saying a PC is a gateway to internet addiction.
Everything has a bad part about it. Do you want to ban everything?



lupinealchemist said:


> I still find it gross.



Gross =/= immoral.
Denying people to be happy just because you don't like what they are doing = immoral.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 12, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Gross =/= immoral.
> Denying people to be happy just because you don't like what they are doing = immoral.



Implying that people have sex to be happy. Little more complicated than that. That doesn't mean we don't have sex for pleasure. But people have had sex for other reasons than to be happy. Or at least for both parties to be happy.

Also with how our laws work they made incest illegal for the health concerns of future offspring. All this "Well you can get the genes examined" implies euthanasia really. Which in this case, it is a moral issue for danger of future offspring

They in general do not otherwise say who and who cannot be a parent. Unless you want to make the laws more complex regarding incest - which could also violate someone's constitutional right as to who can have kids. Which can also be immoral. 

How about people's right to marry as consenting adults? Morally why would shouldn't those who love each other also not allow themselves to marry. Let's divvy up how the rights work now that when someone marries that potentially you have issues with insurance, and property. 



In other words you're not looking at the other part of morality and consequences.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> In other words you're not looking at the other part of morality and consequences.



I am aware of that. I am concentrating on incestous relationships here and deliberately ignoring the problem off birth defects in their potential offspring because I fully ackowledge that this is a problem. I do believe in giving people a chance to be responsible though!
For example, there would be nothing wrong with an incestous couple that wants to adopt a child.
You could enforce rules for these couples. Or offer free gene checks for them to make sure that the child won't turn out to be a horrible horrible mutant with teeth on their eyeballs: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/TI_P7key9jI/AAAAAAAADww/D3MX0BuU8W0/s1600/anesthesia13.png

We do have these possibilities today afterall.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 12, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I am aware of that. I am concentrating on incestous relationships here and deliberately ignoring the problem off birth defects in their potential offspring because I fully ackowledge that this is a problem. I do believe in giving people a chance to be responsible though!


I got to agree with you there.  Just cause some people don't behave responsibly doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed the option to do so, nor does that mean that 100% of the time will a individual behave irresponsibly.  Also that with insinuating that others will behave irresponsibly implies a condescension viewpoint towards others.

What I mean by that is the "we should keep it banned cause people are irresponsible" is implying that oneself knows what's better for a individual than the person involved.

The problem with this sort of mentality is immediately obvious when you apply it to other areas.  Like for example I am ungodly amounts of accident prone; I have been ran over by cars, electrocuted, burned, sliced open, smashed, fallen from a distance, almost walked into a empty elevator once(it was only one story, but the asshole mechanic didn't put up a sign or anything.  Now I know not every elevator mechanic knows what the hell he's doing and to always make sure the elevator is there before walking in), punctured by sharp objects, etc.  Yesterday I messed up my toe really badly even.  Does that make me irresponsible?  No, I am just accident prone.  Someone could make the argument I should wear protective gear 24/7, hard hats, fireproof clothing, electricy proof gloves and such and that to do so otherwise is irresponsible.  Does that make me irresponsible to live to not be living in a plastic bubble?  No.

What I am getting at is people are not as irresponsible as Arshes is implying and yes they do at least deserve the chance to be responsible.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 12, 2013)

You seem to ignore the fact that it's people's constitutional right to have kids. This was also upheld because of gay parenting. So basically, while incest is illegal, there are still rights granted to unborn (least within reason - ie after the third trimester). 

Your solutions were that even if one got knocked up, test for genes and do euthanasia. Which is pretty fucked up. 

These people also have a right to marry if it weren't illegal/immoral

This lends to more confusing situations that deal with law. Same reason why polygamy is not accepted.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> You seem to ignore the fact that it's people's constitutional right to have kids. This was also upheld because of gay parenting. So basically, while incest is illegal, there are still rights granted to unborn (least within reason - ie after the third trimester).
> 
> Your solutions were that even if one got knocked up, test for genes and do euthanasia. Which is pretty fucked up.
> 
> ...


Hey now, I never said anything about euthanasia.


----------



## Rilvor (Jan 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Hey now, I never said anything about euthanasia.



So what do you propose doing with the inevitable children born that are promised naught but a tattered shadow of life?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 12, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> So what do you propose doing with the inevitable children born that are promised naught but a tattered shadow of life?


It's called condoms.


----------



## Rilvor (Jan 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> It's called condoms.



Don't cop out. Answer the question. If you're going to wheedle we're done here.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> It's called condoms.



Condoms are not 100% effective. I like how you keep telling people *not* to breed but morally allowing incest means morally allowing them *to breed.*


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Your solutions were that even if one got knocked up, test for genes and do euthanasia. Which is pretty fucked up.



No, wrong. My solution is to get your genes checked BEFORE you get down and dirty with your sister  We do have the option to do that today. For example, if they both get checked and they both carry some nasty recessive gene like the one for sickle-cell disease or haemophilia or anything else that would be really shitty to live with they could decide not to have kids or to adopt instead.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 12, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> No, wrong. My solution is to get your genes checked BEFORE you get down and dirty with your sister  We do have the option to do that today. For example, if they both get checked and they both carry some nasty recessive gene like the one for sickle-cell disease or haemophilia or anything else that would be really shitty to live with they could decide not to have kids or to adopt instead.



Your genes checked does not guarantee the outcome of the child. 

Try again.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> You seem to ignore the fact that it's people's constitutional right to have kids. This was also upheld because of gay parenting. So basically, while incest is illegal, there are still rights granted to unborn (least within reason - ie after the third trimester).
> 
> Your solutions were that even if one got knocked up, test for genes and do euthanasia. Which is pretty fucked up.
> 
> ...



On the subject of polygamy I feel the justification against incest is stronger and different in nature. I am ambivilent about polygamy.




Arshes Nei said:


> Your genes checked does not guarantee the outcome of the child.
> 
> Try again.



Nor does it for a normal child or the child of people with a history of certain hereditory diseases. We're into difficult territory here, but importantly we should recognise whether or not you want incest to remain illegal, that no reproductive laws come with guarantees, so it's not a vice by which to measure them.


----------



## Rilvor (Jan 12, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> No, wrong. My solution is to get your genes checked BEFORE you get down and dirty with your sister  We do have the option to do that today. For example, if they both get checked and they both carry some nasty recessive gene like the one for sickle-cell disease or haemophilia or anything else that would be really shitty to live with they could decide not to have kids or to adopt instead.



So your solution relies on a behavior we as a species still cannot come close to accomplishing for other sexual concerns. Also what Arshes said.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> On the subject of polygamy I feel the justification against incest is stronger and different in nature. I am ambivilent about polygamy.



I agree. However, I brought up polygamy because of issues with laws ie child support/martial disputes/insurance etc... Plus polygamy is almost always about men marrying multiple women, not the other way around  (But that's a different thing)


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Your genes checked does not guarantee the outcome of the child.
> 
> Try again.



So what is the difference between siblings making a kid and two people making a kid who both carry recessive genes for a terrible genetic disease? Should we outlaw sex, just to be sure?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> I agree. However, I brought up polygamy because of issues with laws ie child support/martial disputes/insurance etc... Plus polygamy is almost always about men marrying multiple women, not the other way around  (But that's a different thing)



It's going to be difficult not to shoot off into a tangent. I think that polygamy could eventually be realised in law given sufficient societal change and different legalese, but I think the biological problems with incest will remain for much longer than that. They are the crux of the problem in my view. 

On that note I'm not sure where the discussion went with homosexual v heterosexual incest.



CaptainCool said:


> So what is the difference between siblings  making a kid and two people making a kid who both carry recessive genes  for a terrible genetic disease? Should we outlaw sex, just to be  sure?



We should recognise reproduction never comes in guaranteed black/white shades. It's always grey. 

I personally wonder, due to the motivation to avoid incest, which I assume is innate, whether it would pose a huge genetic problem if there were no law against it. 

Small amounts might even be beneficial to the genepool as a whole even if they are at the expense of a minority within it, as is the case with recessive genes that have different functions depending on carrier/sufferer status. 

It's very difficult to dissect this issue because nature just doesn't care about a small minority of humans with incredibly awful lives if the whole benefits, so there may even be a group of genes that can lead to the expression of incest within a population to 'intently' force some inbreeding.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 12, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> So what is the difference between siblings making a kid and two people making a kid who both carry recessive genes for a terrible genetic disease? Should we outlaw sex, just to be sure?



The amount of people who end up with babies who have genetic disorders would still be smaller in scope and less psychologically harmful than incest babies. It is also less confusing law wise, which is another point that gets skipped.



Fallowfox said:


> On that note I'm not sure where the discussion went with homosexual v heterosexual incest.



Biologically less harmful if you're only worried about population, psychologically still harmful.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 12, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Don't cop out. Answer the question. If you're going to wheedle we're done here.


How is promoting safesex a copout?
Secondly earlier on in the thread we actually talked about potential genetic risks and short version is there's only serious genetic risks with 3'rd or 4'th generation.  If it's a one time deal the rise in risk in minimal, but it would have to be 3 generations of incest for there to be problems.  A easy way to prevent such a occurrence would to be decriminalize incest with the catch of, "if you have kids together and then they have kids with a family member their child then can not be with a family member".


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> The amount of people who end up with babies who have genetic disorders would still be smaller in scope and less psychologically harmful than incest babies. It is also less confusing law wise, which is another point that gets skipped.



I doubt that the amount of incest babies would be big enough to matter anyway. Incest isn't exactly common. Plus the chance that the kid might have something incredibly terrible isn't that astronomically big anyway.
You are turning this into way more of a problem than it has to be.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> The amount of people who end up with babies who have genetic disorders would still be smaller in scope and less psychologically harmful than incest babies. It is also less confusing law wise, which is another point that gets skipped.


But what you are forgetting is what if a non-incestual couple have a family history of a serious genetic disease or such and they have a very high chance of the child having it?

Should we criminalize people with a family history of a genetic disease from having sex to look out for the well being of a potential offspring?  If a doctor KNOWS a non-incestual offspring will have a serious genetic disease then why should they have the child, think of the children.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> The amount of people who end up with babies who have genetic disorders would still be smaller in scope and less psychologically harmful than incest babies. It is also less confusing law wise, which is another point that gets skipped.
> 
> 
> 
> Biologically less harmful if you're only worried about population, psychologically still harmful.



Psychologically harmful depending on situation. It's quite a subjective discussion as there's a world of difference between voluntary multiple unions that can be dissolved at any time any single person wishes and involuntary ones forged from social expectation or religious tradition. 

This is why I necessitated societal change and different legalese in my description.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 12, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> You are turning this into way more of a problem than it has to be.



Mirror, here's glass. 

There's already complicated laws that have to deal with people being irresponsible. You guys are copping out and it's cowardly. You're not really addressing the problems. You just said "well we should practice safe sex" and you encourage pretty much euthanasia. 

You still refuse to deal with the rights of the aftermath of these situations.

Fallowfox, have you seen what "legalese" has been doing? The assumption that lawyers will make things understandable without complicated loopholes for this situation is a problem no one seems to really care about. It's really a bad way of thinking.

"Oh we can make a law about that" forgetting what politicians are in charge and how legal systems work.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> and you encourage pretty much euthanasia.


. . . Hold on.  Arshes, please direct us to where anyone supported euthanasia.  I have already asked you to tell me where anyone supported euthanasia and have not delivered.  CaptainCool called you out on this statement as well and you ignored him too.

I'm not asking you to make some super long post or anything, I'm just wondering how did you come to the conclusion that anyone here supports euthanizing people.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> . . . Hold on.  Arshes, please direct us to where anyone supported euthanasia.  I have already asked you to tell me where anyone supported euthanasia and have not delivered.  CaptainCool called you out on this statement as well and you ignored him too.



Captain cool only answered one part of it. He kept saying gene testing was the answer. It's not. There is no guarantee that gene testing is the solution. So what exactly is he proposing with this gene testing? That he can prevent it? That people can afford this? That if they do turn up with possible genetic problems what? Deny people the ability to be together? Kill the child if it becomes a problem?

You guys really are refusing to address the outcomes of some of these situations that really need to be dealt with - just throwing a herring in and not actually addressing the problem with solutions.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Captain cool only answered one part of it. He kept saying gene testing was the answer. It's not. There is no guarantee that gene testing is the solution. So what exactly is he proposing with this gene testing? That he can prevent it? That people can afford this? That if they do turn up with possible genetic problems what? Deny people the ability to be together? Kill the child if it becomes a problem?
> 
> You guys really are refusing to address the outcomes of some of these situations that really need to be dealt with - just throwing a herring in and not actually addressing the problem with solutions.


What?  No one is saying to go out and suffocate their children in the cribs or such.  How are you making the jump from "hey go see a doctor to see if you're kid's going to be fine" to "hey go kill your already born child"?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 12, 2013)

Are you going to address the issues or not? 

If not then let's kill the thread since you started it and refuse to really participate in it.


----------

