shadyspace
Banned
Couldn't you two just have gone and roleplayed and left GAF out of it.
Incest between consenting adults...
- Thread starter Deified Data
- Start date
- Status
Couldn't you two just have gone and roleplayed and left GAF out of it.
Let me try another way.
Do you have siblings? If you don't, this question can be posed to anyone reading this topic.
Call one of them and say this. "Hypothetically, if the two of us were attracted to one another, would you have sex with me?"
Devolution
Member
Well that's just plain ol' bullshit that rests on marriage dictating "children" down the line. Which makes more sense when homosexuality is also used as a comparison. In this day and age marriage is more about the couple than possible future kin.
That don't happen everyday? My cut-off is this. It's is not legal to ban a relationship between two unrelated individuals......it's actually encouraged because the chances of diversifying a gene pool and having children who are less likely to have a deformity are increased. Incest between two recessive types like you are saying, DOES NOT diversify a gene pool and keeps a horrible deformity within a family whatever it is, SO WHY should it be encouraged let alone legalized? Why should a government legalize something that would in the long run over burden it's health care system and strain its resources? WHY SHOULD INCENST BE MADE LEGAL, is my question when we very well know the risks involved?
CrocMother
Banned
I want to have sex with anyone I am attracted to. That is a silly question.
That being said, I wouldn't want to have sex with my sister due to the high level of shit I would receive from society. But if two people are willing to face that shitstorm, flout convention and go for it? I won't judge them.
Vermillion
Banned
Fair enough. As it stands, though, incest is generally detrimental. With homosexuals, they have no chance of producing any offspring, and so long as STDs don't come into the picture, they're safe.
With incest, there is a chance of not only producing an offspring with genetic defects, but further serving to halt the improvement of the human race.
My question is why do people turn to their family members anyways? That definitely brings up another psychological problem.
Deified Data
Banned
Agreed. The inevitability of children is something that has to be doubted more and more as time goes on. In an age where most couples have to seriously decide whether they want children or not, using children as an argument against incest is going to become less and less relevent.
See above. Incestuous couples are already allowed to procreate. There's no law saying they can't, not in the USA. The issue is marriage, with many people seeing marriage as the first step towards inevitably having a child. That's not necessarily so, and it becomes less likely as time goes on.
Don't be obtuse, interracial couples and children were looked down upon because people thought black people were little more than animals.
Nevermind, since you edited.
The same? Dwarves options in terms of partners is severely limited (ie, they are more likely to attract and be comfortable with other dwarves). They also live with these 'disabilities' that they'd pass on, rather than subjecting their children to new ones that they've never experienced.
Incest partners can simply choose not to fuck their sibling/parent. It's really simple.
"Hey, son. Don't fuck your sister."
"Alright."
"Great."
"What about all the other women that I see every day walking around?"
"Sure."
"What about mom?"
"No."
Really simple.
CrocMother
Banned
Lol you just wanted to get me to say I'd have sex with my sister.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
Love this gif so much.
right click save. wonderful.
SirChained
Banned
Dwarfs having sex doesn't happen every day? Surely you can't possibly think they are that prude.
By your logic, we should make alcohol, cigarettes, fast food illegal too. Anything that burdens the almighty health care. It seems you don't really care about preventing the passing on of heritable diseases, only when it applies to incest. Again, it shows you either don't understand genetics or you just don't care. Two dwarfs having a child is a higher risk than two seemingly normal relatives.
Vermillion
Banned
Then we would have to ask the question "why would you be attracted to one another," and "why is there no one else"?
With homosexuals, you ask either of those questions, and you get the following:
- They were born that way
- Because they are attracted to their own gender, period, following the previous question
With an incestuous relationship, you get:
- A likely psychological/familial problem
- ???
Broder Salsa
Banned
This need to be filmed as some short introduction so sex education.
I don't understand. You would deny your most basic human needs because of what society thinks? You would deny true love?
That doesn't sound like something worth defending.
Sickboy007
Member
Wait what? Who's enouraging incest, and where is it happening everyday?
The dwarf example is very fitting, in this day and age where thankfully disabled individuals are able to have a sexuality, it might even be more common than good old incest.
Do you guys know there are dating conventions for little people?
Naked Snake
Member
My parents are cousins, as in two of my grandparents are siblings.
Yeah it's gross.
Yeah it's gross.
orientalNoodle
Banned
So when a baby boy is born, on his way out, his penis would rub against his mother's vagina. Would that be considered incest?
Vermillion
Banned
That's dumb as shit.
1) Human needs can be satisfied by other human beings. Clearly.
2) True love? What the fuck is this shit? Are you honestly arguing that there's only one person that they could ever find attractive? Let's say the sister dies - fuck everything, right?
You haven't answered my question. Incest involves bringing a child into this world? Another human being. In contrast the example you gave involved a decision on how you should treat you're own body..
And i'm fairly confident on my understanding of genetics otherwise i wouldn't be talking about the topic.........buddy.
ChuyMasta
Member
New levels of stupid have been reached.
Please don't interject in things you don't understand.
He clearly said he has sex with people he's attracted to.
Which is okay? Was i arguing against that? Argument is if incest is okay. I'm giving my opinion.
orientalNoodle
Banned
lol so are the discussions in this thread.
Deified Data
Banned
No, he's arguing that if you fall in love with your sister you should be able to pursue that. Same if a guy fell in love with a guy, or a girl with a girl. Society will have an opinion on what you do. He's saying that if it's negative, ignore it.
No? No, it doesn't! No more than giving someone a handjob involves bringing a child into the world! Stop confusing sex with procreation.
CrocMother
Banned
The original question was if I was attracted to her, not if we were in love.
There are plenty of people I know that I am NOT related to who I wouldn't fuck even though they are attractive due to various reasons. Even if I was trapped on an island forever with just my sister, I would relieve my "basic human needs" myself.
But if two people decided to go for it? It's not my place to judge, because they aren't hurting anyone and everybody deserves the opportunity to love who they want to love.
It seems as though people are approaching the argument two different ways. While I know the thread is not solely about the legality issue, it helps me illustrate my case.
1. Incest is illegal -> Why should it be illegal? -> Not really any good arguments (besides the children one, let's assume all relationships use contraceptives) -> It should be legal
2. Incest is illegal -> Why should it be legal? -> Not really any good arguments -> It should stay illegal
I tend to approach it from the first view, as I do most things.
1. Incest is illegal -> Why should it be illegal? -> Not really any good arguments (besides the children one, let's assume all relationships use contraceptives) -> It should be legal
2. Incest is illegal -> Why should it be legal? -> Not really any good arguments -> It should stay illegal
I tend to approach it from the first view, as I do most things.
Amibguous Cad
Member
This is an interesting topic I can't come to a satisfactory conclusion on.
Firstly, OP is incorrect that we don't punish or find morally problematic people who damage the genetics of their future children. This paper makes a case against the practice (http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/pub_bp_punishingwomen.pdf), but concedes that the phenomenon in fact exists. Many jurisdictions have passed laws criminalizing women who drink or do drugs during pregnancy, andthe trend seems to be toward passing more of these kinds of laws.
Intuitively, it makes sense to me that a drug habit during pregnancy that leads to brain damage is morally problematic in a similar way to someone who breaks a beer bottle over someone's head and causes brain damage, though of lesser culpability because less malice is involved. So I'm pretty comfortable in asserting this much: damaging the genetics of your offspring is functionally equivalent to introducing the harm in any other way. The mechanism of harm shouldn't matter that much; the harm that is inflicted should be what's important.
This is not, however, entirely satisfactory. In particular, the genetic argument has given in the past has given legitimacy for oppressive behavior on the part of the majority. A first-blush reading of the moral principles I've laid out here would similarly prohibit allowing those with inheritable disabilities, or HIV positive people, from having kids. I'm not entirely willing to rule this out as an end result of my moral principles, but for now it's important to note that the application of the principle to these populations introduces substantial civil rights questions. I'll toss the incestuous population in here, too, whose oppression may ultimately be justified but nevertheless in the main be motivated by animus against an unpopular sexual minority.
The point about other risks for birth defects is well made, but allow me to make an analogy. Getting behind the wheel of the car endangers other people. Doing so while tired endangers them even more. Doing so while drunk endangers them even further. So at what point do we draw the line between an acceptable risk, and at what point is such a risk unconscionable? I'm not sure, but I do know that there is a line somewhere. That we do not imprison the tired driver does not make us hypocrites for imprisoning the drunk driver. An increased probability of harm can be considered unwise, while still below the threshold of moral condemnation, while an even greater probability of harm can rise to that same threshold.
Here's what my research found. I haven't vetted these sources, and I'm not entirely certain these studies use "birth defect" in exactly the same way, so caveat lector. That said, 20-36% of children born from parent-child or brother-sister incest will die or have major birth defects, 6 to 8 percent of children born to mothers aged 40 and above will suffer a similar fate, 4% of children born from cousins will have birth defects, and 2% of babies born in the general population as a whole will have birth defects. Based on the reasoning above, the taboo against direct relation incest would seem to be justified, rising far above the probability of harm that a 40-year old mother does, but the taboo against cousin incest seems largely unjustified. This combined with the wealth of societies that have no problem with cousin leads me to conclude that its current prohibition is largely the product of a closed-minded populace expressing animus against an unpopular sexual minority.
It should be noted, however, that with modern technology it's pretty easy to prevent having a child. Even if you think abortion is morally problematic, the chances of, say, a condom failing probably puts incestuous relations below the probability of harm that a woman over the age of 40 having a kid will have. The chances dip even further if one or both partners are sterilized or if they layer birth control methods.
At some point I want to tackle the issue of bodily autonomy and our reluctance to impose eugenic limits on reproductive freedom in regards to this issue, but I've rambled on enough for now.
Firstly, OP is incorrect that we don't punish or find morally problematic people who damage the genetics of their future children. This paper makes a case against the practice (http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/pub_bp_punishingwomen.pdf), but concedes that the phenomenon in fact exists. Many jurisdictions have passed laws criminalizing women who drink or do drugs during pregnancy, andthe trend seems to be toward passing more of these kinds of laws.
Intuitively, it makes sense to me that a drug habit during pregnancy that leads to brain damage is morally problematic in a similar way to someone who breaks a beer bottle over someone's head and causes brain damage, though of lesser culpability because less malice is involved. So I'm pretty comfortable in asserting this much: damaging the genetics of your offspring is functionally equivalent to introducing the harm in any other way. The mechanism of harm shouldn't matter that much; the harm that is inflicted should be what's important.
This is not, however, entirely satisfactory. In particular, the genetic argument has given in the past has given legitimacy for oppressive behavior on the part of the majority. A first-blush reading of the moral principles I've laid out here would similarly prohibit allowing those with inheritable disabilities, or HIV positive people, from having kids. I'm not entirely willing to rule this out as an end result of my moral principles, but for now it's important to note that the application of the principle to these populations introduces substantial civil rights questions. I'll toss the incestuous population in here, too, whose oppression may ultimately be justified but nevertheless in the main be motivated by animus against an unpopular sexual minority.
The point about other risks for birth defects is well made, but allow me to make an analogy. Getting behind the wheel of the car endangers other people. Doing so while tired endangers them even more. Doing so while drunk endangers them even further. So at what point do we draw the line between an acceptable risk, and at what point is such a risk unconscionable? I'm not sure, but I do know that there is a line somewhere. That we do not imprison the tired driver does not make us hypocrites for imprisoning the drunk driver. An increased probability of harm can be considered unwise, while still below the threshold of moral condemnation, while an even greater probability of harm can rise to that same threshold.
Here's what my research found. I haven't vetted these sources, and I'm not entirely certain these studies use "birth defect" in exactly the same way, so caveat lector. That said, 20-36% of children born from parent-child or brother-sister incest will die or have major birth defects, 6 to 8 percent of children born to mothers aged 40 and above will suffer a similar fate, 4% of children born from cousins will have birth defects, and 2% of babies born in the general population as a whole will have birth defects. Based on the reasoning above, the taboo against direct relation incest would seem to be justified, rising far above the probability of harm that a 40-year old mother does, but the taboo against cousin incest seems largely unjustified. This combined with the wealth of societies that have no problem with cousin leads me to conclude that its current prohibition is largely the product of a closed-minded populace expressing animus against an unpopular sexual minority.
It should be noted, however, that with modern technology it's pretty easy to prevent having a child. Even if you think abortion is morally problematic, the chances of, say, a condom failing probably puts incestuous relations below the probability of harm that a woman over the age of 40 having a kid will have. The chances dip even further if one or both partners are sterilized or if they layer birth control methods.
At some point I want to tackle the issue of bodily autonomy and our reluctance to impose eugenic limits on reproductive freedom in regards to this issue, but I've rambled on enough for now.
Please reply to my previous post and tell me why you would disagree.
I think these analogies/comparisons (that try and frame incest in an acceptable, progressive light) all fail in one way or another, but it's not always readily apparent.
Vermillion
Banned
Clearly you don't understand. Your argument is ridiculous, and I'll keep explaining why until you come up with a sufficient counter-argument.
For the record, what you just posted isn't one.
He has sex with people who he's attracted to... what's your point? What are you saying? What in my post does this refute? Honest question - I'm going to cease the snark for a while.
alexthekid
Member
God damn! Didn't now that you could explain an situation this easy and perfectly, As far from over analyzing as it can come!
SirChained
Banned
Incest should be legal because two consenting adults should be allowed to have sex. I know the risks, but they are an unfortunate part of biology. We can't ban something because there are "risks". I'm sure you'd agree that many more things would be banned.
Also I presented a real world example. Two dwarfs bearing a child has at least a 75% chance of passing on that gene. Depending on their genotype, it may well be 100%. Regardless of who a dwarf mates with, it will have at least a 50% chance, possibly 100% because dwarfism is dominant. This is much higher than incest between adults that appear normal (but may carry recessive alleles).
Okay, let me put it like this. My arguments against incest involve bringing a child into this world? Sounds better?
Sickboy007
Member
After the dating, they tend to fuck. And if they want to, they have kids. Which breaks down your argument.
First of all, the state shouldn't judge who's "fit" to live. The parents should, especially the mother. Secondly, in the dwarf example, the genes are not even recessive.
If you read my arguments you would know i have no problem with unrelated people who have the same genetic deformity procreating.
And as for you're second point, my argument is if incest is illegal, keep it illegal.
Vermillion
Banned
So again:
Why are they attracted to their sister? Likely familial/psychological issues.
Why does incest happen?
CrocMother
Banned
The only problem I have with your reasoning is that you are operating within a framework that assumes sexual activity is tied with reproduction, which as several posters have noted is a rather antiquated notion.
I think we can all agree that two siblings having a child is provably wrong, for the child and society in general, which may well bare the brunt of the cost the child's bad health entails.
However, as I mentioned earlier, I don't see how someone can reasonably say that two consenting adults engaging in behavior which does not directly harm another living thing (including a potential offspring) is morally wrong.
And yes, that means that if two people, even if they weren't related, had a 30% chance of passing a severely debilitating condition to their child I would say that it is morally wrong for them to reproduce. Adopt.
Sickboy007
Member
You should expand it then, because other than the genetic predisposition to illnesses (which we demonstrated happens in many other cases, legally) you didn't add anything of note.
Expand it to what? That is my only argument for incest to be kept illegal. I don't care about other reasons you may think i have.
Vermillion
Banned
I would hope there's a caveat there saying that this is only if they reciprocate.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
When it's comes to law - is it really going be easy to make a law that says "Yes you are legally able to have sex with your sister or engage in marriage with her, but you are AREN'T allowed to have children with her"
Hence why the arguments always tend to go back to that issue.
Not only incest but pedophilia. All the mothers in the world are sex offenders and should be jailed.
SirChained
Banned
So you're saying it should be kept illegal because it already is illegal, and making it legal might encourage it? So would you say it's no more morally wrong than two say, 2 dwarfs procreating or what?
EdibleExplosives
Member
I honestly couldn't give a shit what consenting adults get up to, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked