This is my posture as well. Banning a sexual practice on the grounds of "ewww gross" is stupid and anti-liberal.
Incest "a fundamental right", says German Ethics Council
- Thread starter hosannainexcelsis
- Start date
- Status
This is my posture as well. Banning a sexual practice on the grounds of "ewww gross" is stupid and anti-liberal.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
Incest is only ethically bad (if even that).
If people love each other, then hell, go at it.
Banning incest is basically like banning homosexual and bisexual love between people.
If people love each other, then hell, go at it.
Banning incest is basically like banning homosexual and bisexual love between people.
The Dennis System
Banned
I'd say the genetic defects are the whole issue. If it wasn't for the genetic defects, I don't think there would be any logical reason to be opposed to sibling incest.
I've already linked to studies showing that the rate of genetic defects in the offspring of first-family relationships shoots up. I don't see how you divorce that by framing it as well, they have existing genetic predisposition. Well, yeah. Because they are picking the one worst possible person to have a child with in terms of the overall genetic health.
But as I said previously, if you take the children out of the equation, I have no problem with it.
Should have been a G/A/F thread. People would have guessed wrong.
And no, just no. Incest = Bad
Just because the law allows it doesn't mean everyone is gonna be a motherfucker.
If we at least had some kind of contraceptive method...
This is disgusting and there is absolutely nothing ethical about incest. It is one of the lowest forms of human depravity and society should not allow any leeway for it whatsoever. I don't care if it's between two consenting adults. People can consent to all kinds of shit, that doesn't make it okay and it doesn't mean society should allow it.
Forgive me, but I'm starting to feel as though Poe's Law is coming into effect as far people's civil liberty concerns go. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years we'll have beastiality laws struck down. It's got absolutely nothing to do with incest, but hey, if people want to fuck an animal, why not? It's their body and it's a brave new motherfucking world, literally.
Some might be romanticising incest based on whatever experiences or medium of entertainment they've indulged, but incest goes beyond the mere cousin fucking. It's a public health risk, and there are some serious psychological concerns.
I also think it's incredibly naive to think this issue won't only escalate over time. You say it's okay to have sex with your mother or father now, down the line incests rights (I feel sick just saying it) will become even more a thing with a movement to promote acceptance entire families born from incest. It's never going to be kept as simple as wanting to fuck your family member without it being taboo. Just look at the case in question. Brother and sister are not only fucking, they're starting a family, and it will simply continue to snowball from there.
1. In what way?
2. In what way?
3. In what way?
How are genetics against any of that?
Forgive me, but I'm starting to feel as though Poe's Law is coming into effect as far people's civil liberty concerns go. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years we'll have beastiality laws struck down. It's got absolutely nothing to do with incest, but hey, if people want to fuck an animal, why not? It's their body and it's a brave new motherfucking world, literally.
I'll stop being facetious now.
Some might be romanticising incest based on whatever experiences or medium of entertainment they've indulged, but incest goes beyond the mere cousin fucking. It's a public health risk, and there are some serious psychological concerns.
I also think it's incredibly naive to think this issue won't only escalate over time. You say it's okay to have sex with your mother or father now, down the line incests rights (I feel sick just saying it) will become even more a thing with a movement to promote acceptance entire families born from incest. It's never going to be kept as simple as wanting to fuck your family member without it being taboo. Just look at the case in question. Brother and sister are not only fucking, they're starting a family, and it will simply continue to snowball from there.
1. In what way?
2. In what way?
3. In what way?
How are genetics against any of that?
Baki
Member
25-40% is pretty significant. Although I think jail time is excessive, it does need to be regulated in some way.
This is an interesting subject as many people block this just for their view that incest is "disgusting". Before something like this should be legalized, it would need heavy amounts of study, both on genetic chances of illness for children, and psychological effects. I do not agree with children/parent incest though, since it will make abuse very difficult to prosecute, since grooming does tend to happen.
As I said, personally, if they are at consenting age I don't care so long as it isn't parent/child or the incestuous couple is trying to procreate (until more studies done for accuracy). It is said incest happens a lot more than we know in families and yet of these, many do come out of it, "alright" so to speak. Therefore I am not completely sure on the psychological effects when the relationship was never, forced in a traumatic way.
As I said, personally, if they are at consenting age I don't care so long as it isn't parent/child or the incestuous couple is trying to procreate (until more studies done for accuracy). It is said incest happens a lot more than we know in families and yet of these, many do come out of it, "alright" so to speak. Therefore I am not completely sure on the psychological effects when the relationship was never, forced in a traumatic way.
Sarcastico
Member
It was a bizarre response to a bizarre statement.
I don't think anyone has a problem with your views, but please get your science right. I think some of the people arguing with you may be seen as "pro-incest" but I know most of us are just trying to make sure you understand the information you're using for your arguments. To me it seems like you don't have a strong scientific background and you're using poorly understood studies to back up your own personal views. Like I said in my first post in this thread, I don't really care about the status of incest laws one way or another. I just want to make sure people's opinions are informed.
First off (and this isn't necessarily to you), there's a link to a Wikipedia article about Patrick Stübing. That's one anecdotal example of an incestuous relationship that caused developmental issues for their children. If I posted a Wikipedia article about a guy who had a non-incestuous relationship which caused the same developmental issues for his children, would anybody care? Of course not since it's just one anecdotal example that doesn't prove anything.
Second, as several people have tried to explain- there's nothing magical about being related to someone else. Many royal families have practiced incest for several generations. Most pure-bred animals have a long history of inbreeding as well which almost definitely has been producing a large percentage of dog-show and horse-race winners.
It is 100% true that an incestuous relationship is more likely to produce defects in children. I will agree with that. However, it is (directly) not because the participants are related. This may seem contradictory but this is an important distinction. It's like the statement "homosexual males are more likely to contract HIV than non-homosexual males." Yes, it's 100% true, but it's not because they're homosexual. Their homosexuality doesn't just magically give them HIV. For incestuous relationships, defects in children are because any problems in one partner's genetic code are likely to also be in the other partner's genetic code rather than one partner's healthy genes compensating for the partner's dysfunctional genes.
The reason I bring all of this up is because of these quotes:
For the first quote, it seems as if you think that just the virtue of having genes in common with your mate will produce unhealthy children.
The second quote makes it seem as if you think that a relative is the absolute worst person you can mate with genetically.
Both of these arguments are false.
Why am I making a big deal about all of this? Well, because logically trying to ban incest is complicated. If it's for the children, then should someone with an autosomal dominant trait that's almost 100% guaranteed to be passed down to children be allowed to mate? What about two known carriers of a disease? What about incestuous couples that can prove via genetic counseling that their likelihood of producing children with defects is near zero? Hell, two random African American people are much more likely to have a child with Sickle Cell Disease. Should that be a concern too? I believe these are the questions that the German Ethics Council asked itself. It's not logically consistent to say "well yeah, we'll allow kids to be put in this small percentage of danger for X reasons while we'll let this other couple produce kids who are almost guaranteed to have a disease."
Semi-related to this thread, but kinda its own tangent- What's more disgusting- a relationship between two step siblings that grew up together since birth or a relationship between two siblings separated at birth that happened to find out they were related after they got married and had kids? While I think the majority would find the second more disgusting, I don't think the vote would be 100%.
whatever77
Banned
I am just subscribing to this thread to marvel at the Incest Defend Force.
Wickerbasket
Member
I suppose you support making it illegal to procreate if you have a high disposition to carrying genetic diseases as well then?
I think incest is weird as hell, but the arguments for making it illegal are flimsy at best, and bordering on eugenics at worst.
I wish people would just be honest and say they want it to be illegal because it's icky.
Captain Tuttle
Member
I don't have a problem at all with incest being illegal.
Can't believe there's an incest defense force
Can't believe there's an incest defense force
pants
Member
Imagine having to break up with your sister cause it doesnt work out.. next thanksgiving that "pass the turkey please" is going to be laden with awkward
Josh with a J
Member
Grown adults? Go for it, do whatever makes you happy.
The reason is that it fucks with the gene pool. Fundamental right my ass.
Josh with a J
Member
If they don't have kids who gives a shit.
Wiktor
Member
Yeah, it might seem like a good idea, but then shouldn't we also bar anyone with genetic defects from having children? What about mentally challenged people? Shouldn't they also be barred from procreation? It's not such an easy thing to decide.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
I'd say normally, they would do it just fOr sexual satisfaction and not usually too be romantic lovers. Like they both have an SO but still fuck each other when the SOS are busy or something.
I'm no expert on the subject...lol
omnislayer
Member
I can't say incest between consenting adults particularly bothers me. As long as they use contraceptives I don't see a problem with it.
Wickerbasket
Member
So should people with a high risk of passing genetic disease be banned from procreating?
I just want to know if you're consistent.
I don't think people should have kids if the kids have a high chance of having a genetic disease, but I wouldn't make it illegal.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Principally, I agree. Don't see why it should be illegal as long as we're talking about two consenting adults. The possible negative consequences are something to consider, and maybe there should be a mandatory contraception use or something. Or maybe not. I'm not sure.
Other than it also being really grows.
Aaron-Lagann
Banned
Is this thread the same way people used to react to interracial or homosexual couples? Will our kids or kid's kids be looking at this thread as "Oh man, shit was different in your time, huh grandpa/ma?"
Do you only have sex to create offspring?
"Or sister/brother? I'm not sure anymore."
BodiesWithoutOrgans
Member
my views on life is if both people are over the 18 of age and want to . go for it
who am I to judge you
who am I to judge you
CornBurrito
Member
Logically shouldn't anyone using the birth defects argument be against people with genetic disorders having children?
whatever77
Banned
Logically you should be allowed to sex your mother as long as you wear condom.
Escape Goat
Member
I think you need a time out to think about what you've done.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
There's a fairly big subculture of deaf people who want to maximize the odds of their children being born deaf like them.
Laughing Black
Banned
Uh, I know I've been posting a lot...but I couldn't resist.
Look, here's my joke response to the thread title.
I was really waiting for someone to say something, but nobody did and that's the only reason I'm posting again.
Listen to this:
"The German Ethics Council Can Go Fuck Themselves Then" Makes sense because that means they are doing it to themselves, so what's the big deal?
I mean, it's like a play on words.
Get it?
Anyway, sorry...didn't mean to waste anyone's time. Thanks!
Look, here's my joke response to the thread title.
I was really waiting for someone to say something, but nobody did and that's the only reason I'm posting again.
Listen to this:
"The German Ethics Council Can Go Fuck Themselves Then" Makes sense because that means they are doing it to themselves, so what's the big deal?
I mean, it's like a play on words.
Get it?
Anyway, sorry...didn't mean to waste anyone's time. Thanks!
Night Hunter
Banned
Seriously, how many people really had a consensual incestuous relationship in their life a.k.a. fucked their brother/sister? Any studies on that?
On second thought... People who are involved in incest relationships should not be sent to jail. No, they should be locked up in a padded cell. Also, their immortal transparent baby should be placed in a steel drum filled with concrete and dumped into the deepest darkest ocean.
Hopefully it'll never return from its aquatic slumber.
Hopefully it'll never return from its aquatic slumber.
CornBurrito
Member
I don't see anything wrong with being consistent with moral positions. If you don't want kids to be born with defects you would be better off targeting those with genetic diseases.
yup, not even comparable, imo.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Two cousins experimenting when they're young is one thing. It being cool to smash your mom or sis? Sorry but I can't condone that.
The Smoking Bun
Banned
Who are you to judge though? Maybe we should have a "Mind your own business" law
Now if there is any form of abuse occurring or if they have children they could be taken to court. Incestuous couple shouldn't be allowed to have children simply because of the high susceptibility to genetic disorders which affects the gene pool
and the possibility the child might grow up to be Joffery Baratheon
Conversely my argument almost sounds like eugenics. Couples where a partner has a genetic disorder not allowed to reproduce.
So we are back to the "It's icky and eww" reason. Bestiality would be a bad comparison since animals can't give consent and no rubbing against you does't mean consent
If there's no pregnancy involved, then what's the big deal?
Also if you're banning incest on genetics grounds, are we then going to ban anyone who has a risk of passing on a disease from having sex too?
As such an absolute statement, that's wrong. It's only 14 if the partner is between 14-16 or at least under 18.
Deified Data
Banned
I can't think of a single legitimate reason to outlaw incest between consenting adults in any way, shape, or form. We don't regulate any other relationships by the damaged offspring they may have (people with inheritable, congenital defects), or for their potential of abuse (Ray Rice is still with his fiance, right?), and we're currently in the process of dismantling the notion that you should be allowed to keep people apart because some people in society think their union is "gross" (increasing access to gay marriage). Let them be. We have bigger things to worry about.
Apparently it's okay for the over 21 year old if the 14 year old(or older) doesn't complain.
crazygambit
Member
While I can understand being against it (I certainly am), do we really think as a society that the best course of action in this case was to separate a family, send the parents to jail and leave the children in the care of foster parents? 'Cause to me that sounds like a horrible solution.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked