No it wouldn't apply. You are not brought up to love your "girl or boy next door." At least, my sister wasn't brought up to love the boys in my neighborhood or her friends like she was constantly told, "But you love your brother! Don't be mad at him!" You are brought up to love and respect your sister/brother. Between adults is different. You have years lived under your belt and can fully realize your own feelings, thoughts and actions. It's not our business until someone makes a thread about it asking other's opinions. At which point, it becomes our opinions and our business. I don't judge incestuous couples. I just wouldn't allow it with my kids and I've read enough about "actual incest" stories to know why it can really, really suck for kids growing up. I've also heard why it can be good, but just in fewer numbers. ---------- Post added 18th Aug 2014 at 06:47 PM ---------- No, but you can go find them. Start at Google then search scientific journals and your topics. I am not going to cheat your ability to be able to A) succumb to my argument or B) actually be able to refute it with scientific data. You're problem with my argument is that you don't understand it. I don't care what people do. Really. If someone wants to have sex with their sister, more power to you. I just don't think it's healthy development for children. That is my main concern with incest, is it usually starts young. But for those who do it older, I honestly don't care. Can't stop that can you.
Freud said that the two universal taboos are patricide and incest, the pillars of civilization. The reasoning behind prohibition of incest from a rational basis is the genetic problems that arise. So long as that problem is sufficiently resolved consensual sex is consensual.
I didn't mean to be rude, sorry if i sounded like that. I agree, it is our opinions, and we are debating about it. What i mean is: Why is it wrong if it is between adults, regardless if it is real or false love? Relationships between kids are another topic, incestuous or not. And, i'm not provoking, i really would like to see the researches you mentioned, peraphs it will change my mind. If possible, please reference them.
It's cool. I took it a little harsh, I apologize as well. My thing is, if adults want to do it... Go for it. They are adults, they have lived life, experienced love, know what works and what doesn't. Nothing more can be said. If they want to get married, more power to them. They know what they are getting into. So, yeah. If I would have gotten my first edit it on my first post, I think I would have quelled most of this. Lol, I had typed out a 10 minute addition to it then I clicked it and it says, "NO! 15 MINUTES! NO! 10 minutes now gone."
My general opinion towards anything involving human relationships is "An it harm none, do what ye will." As long as no person in the relationship is being forced, coerced, or manipulated into joining or remaining in the relationship, and as long as there is no physical, emotional, sexual, social, and/or power abuse in any form, then any relationship is fine by me, regardless of age gap (within reason; modern psychology suggests that individuals are not truly ready for relationships until, at the very, liberal least, about thirteen years of age; if the data repeatedly and consistently shows differently in either direction, then I will adjust my view accordingly), gender differences or similarities, number of individuals in the relationship, racial or socioeconomic differences or similarities, biological relationship to one another, and just about everything else. Per Ouzo's point of discussion, I have two brothers and two sisters (one sister by which I was practically raised). I am also neither romantically nor sexually attracted to anyone in my immediate family. Regarding incestuous couples and reproduction: would it be more acceptable if a geneticist screened the gametes/zygotes for defects and only allowed those zygotes with a minimal risk of severe complications to be implanted into the mother's placenta? Does manipulation of the child's genes to better guarantee developmental and reproductive health increase or decrease the morality of the aforementioned scenario? [I do recognize that eugenics/genetic manipulation/ prenatal interference is a highly controversial topic; I have not fully developed my own stance on the issue.]
I find it a bit disgusting; not something I would ever want to do. But I accept them. It's not hurting anyone, and as long as it doesn't produce a child, I guess I'm okay with it... Someday in the very very far future, if mankind survives that long, everyone is going to be related. Incest has been detected in other species. So, it's one of those things I just need to get my big boy pants on and start being okay with it, even if it disgusts me now.
As long as they're both over the age of consent and not reproducing, sure. I mean I find it a bit weird but that's not a reason to oppose something
I see no reason to logically oppose it for any reason other that what has already been mentioned and agreed to. That being said, on a strictly personal and emotional basis, I find it disturbing.
They don't need to have a biological child. Hm... Well... I guess now you understand very well how some people view homosexual relationships.
That is some serious territory. I personally don't agree with it and can't ever fathom engaging in it consensually. If it has to be done. it should only be done between consenting adults. I go on a site, where it isn't uncommon for incest queries to be posted. Most of these people intend to have sex. I always try to get the point across that when the gene pool is too close, that if they intend to have sex, that they must use protection. Otherwise, they run the risk of offspring having genetic birth defects. (If you are interested in history, you should look up the Habsburg Lip. It was a characteristic of The House of Habsburg. They were a royal family that became so inbred that many of them ended up having genetic defects. The Habsburg Jaw and Other Royal Inbreeding Deformities)
I hate to spark a conversation that has already been done, but, I'm honestly looking more at the "false love" section instead of the reproduction part. I simply don't see how it can be "false." Ada M7 mentioned that you weren't really raised to love the neighbor next door, but you were raised to love your sibling(s)? I don't think that's true. I, and many others, were raised to love everyone. It may a misinterpretation, but from what I've been reading, it seems as if you're talking about the same sort of love concerning both the "neighbor next door" and siblings. Is it the respect sort of love or the romantic sort? If it's the former, I don't understand how that relates to incest. If it's the latter, I don't think anyone is raised to love their sibling romantically. And, what if siblings were separated at birth or a young age? They will not have this "existing love" to build upon... is it still false love then? Saying that it's a false love built out of already being apart of a loving relationship is also implying that you can't love someone before you develop romantic feelings for them. Many people, including me, feel some sort of platonic love before developing these romantic feelings. Romantic love =/= platonic love. There are different sorts of love. I love my sibling with brotherly love, and while I am not romantically or sexually attracted to them, I don't see how this sibling love is any different from a friend love. In fact, I'm close enough to some of my friends that I can call them brothers and sisters. Maybe I misunderstood something, but yeah. There's my thoughts. Feel free to dissect it.
Technically we wouldn't exist without incest (in fact a lot of incest) since there were times when there was only about 1,000 humans on the planet. That's right, all 7 billion of us came from those 1,000 humans. In fact we are all no more than 50th cousins with each. There's a Vsauce video on YouTube that talks about this. With that being said, incest is not something that nature supports. Other animals tend to avoid it at all costs unless the gene pool is really small such as cheetahs and feral cats. Just looking at the old royal families shows incest does no favors. Now if they're consenting adults who avoid reproducing (cousins are the exception) than I guess I don't have a problem legally. Although I can't see incest relationships as completely consensual unless they were separated at birth. Morally, cousins (more than 1st) I'm sort of okay with. Siblings....not so much. Parent and child........no, just no. Not even once.
I have four cousins of mine who were the result of a consensual incestuous relationship. I really like them. *cue banjo music* :lol: That said, two of them came out "messed up. The doctor attributes it to the consanguinity of their parents (both are my first cousins). As such, I have mixed feelings.
Honestly, this tends to be an issue which relies too heavily on the "ick" factor as a justification for impinging on privacy, which is the same moral discourse used to give people a sense of holier-than-thou moral superiority over LGBT+ people. The only convincing argument I can see against this is the risk of inbreeding. However, whilst there's certainly a risk compared to non-incestuous relationships, you start wandering down really unusual territory by immersing yourself in a discussion that is nothing more than subjective genetical engineering. For example, there are studies I've seen linking illnesses such as Crohn's disease, schizophrenia, a whole variety of common cancers, psoriasis, epilepsy, anorexia nervosa, autism (and so on) to genetical heritability. In terms of practical applications, I can certainly think of many examples in which I've worked with children and families who have been diagnosed with physical and learning disabilities also shared by one or both parents. So, the question then evolves itself into decisional balance. If we are to be risk averse and prevent inbreeding because of some particular measurement of risk, do we then prevent all the above groups from reproducing too because of the same principle of heritable risk management? After all, there are particular groups above whose heritable link is much higher than first generational risks of inbreeding, so you can't use the risk management approach on the latter whilst allowing a much bigger risk to reproduce. You're essentially telling one pair they can't play russian roulette with one bullet in the gun, whilst allowing another couple to play the game with 5 bullets loaded. I suspect you can all think back to high school science to think of genetic diseases that have high heritability rates, so you end up stigmatising a lot of people by trying to engineer who should and should not reproduce due to arbitrary concerns of risk. Unless of course you ignore all these, and just then resort to the "ick" of inbreeding... I have no strong beliefs either way. It's an issue that's a lot more complicated than simply going "aye" or "nay" on a forum discussion. I just don't really buy the heritability argument when you delve into it, as it either causes you to wander into eugenic territory, or it exposes that people are willing to disregard the broader and relevant risks and instead just want to use "ick" as the driving force under the guise of welfare concern.
Let me rephrase that: I'm fine with consensual incest, but not with having children via it, just as I'm not OK with people who know they have a horrible hereditary disease (like fatal familial insomnia... *shudder*) having children. Maybe incest would be a little better, as there's no guarantee that there will be a problem, and the problem probably won't be as bad as some hereditary diseases, but still... Having children in a way that increases the likelihood that they will be unable to live a full life is not something I really condone.
I think we walk a very very thin line between eugenics and not wanting to see kids be horrifically disabled.
Whatever floateth your boateth. Honestly, as long as they're consenting adults, it's not my place to judge. My grandparents were first cousins, but that's not really incest.
