And thinking something is wrong just because society sais so doesn't make you a sheep?
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Incest
- Thread starter St Dionysius
- Start date
And thinking something is wrong just because society sais so doesn't make you a sheep?
Come on guys if you're going to directly address Deck be intelligent about it :P
I've got a decently radical opinion here... keep in mind morally I wouldn't consider it right to get with any of my siblings.
People should be able to do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't hurt anybody. There are two main arguments about incest laws IMO, "morality" and genetic defects of children. I personally do not believe the government should impose any morals on any person, other than the moral of doing no unconsented harm to another human being (i.e. murder and stuff). So there goes that argument for my opinion.
Under that logic, there's no reason they can't marry, get together, or have sex. It's when they try and get pregnant that issues arise. Genetic defects would mean that harm would be caused to a child, yes. But it's a slippery slope if you ban incestuous couples from having children and imposing abortion or birth control. Going purely by numbers, a random brother sister pair could be as genetically likely to produce defects as a random other couple (not EVERY random other couple, but a few). By barring the incestuous couple from having kids, it would be discriminating against them to allow people with similar chances of defects from having children. Then you have to pick a number for chance of birth defects for couples, and suddenly you're engineering society. Even if just a little, this is something I'm fundamentally against for normal couples. So I don't see how this doesn't extend for me.
That's how I formed my opinion here. Any counterpoints / questions? :)
I've got a decently radical opinion here... keep in mind morally I wouldn't consider it right to get with any of my siblings.
People should be able to do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't hurt anybody. There are two main arguments about incest laws IMO, "morality" and genetic defects of children. I personally do not believe the government should impose any morals on any person, other than the moral of doing no unconsented harm to another human being (i.e. murder and stuff). So there goes that argument for my opinion.
Under that logic, there's no reason they can't marry, get together, or have sex. It's when they try and get pregnant that issues arise. Genetic defects would mean that harm would be caused to a child, yes. But it's a slippery slope if you ban incestuous couples from having children and imposing abortion or birth control. Going purely by numbers, a random brother sister pair could be as genetically likely to produce defects as a random other couple (not EVERY random other couple, but a few). By barring the incestuous couple from having kids, it would be discriminating against them to allow people with similar chances of defects from having children. Then you have to pick a number for chance of birth defects for couples, and suddenly you're engineering society. Even if just a little, this is something I'm fundamentally against for normal couples. So I don't see how this doesn't extend for me.
That's how I formed my opinion here. Any counterpoints / questions? :)
Here's a parallel: cold weather -> frostbite.
The point is people who engage in going outside in the winter should not pretend, based on the obvious evidence, that if they just "wear gloves" or otherwise attempt to reduce the effects of this action, that frostbites will not occur.
You are right! Fuck gloves!
I am also not going to use mouthwash because the logical end result of putting something in one's mouth is to swallow it, and that shit is toxic :(
Man back in the days only the most courageous of lumberjacks could go outside in the harsh Canadian winter to get the job like the fucking manly men they were. Now everybody is doing it! I am enraged at all these pansies with their coats and mittens and scarves devaluing Canadian winter.
Yeah! Back in the days when you went outside you'd get the scars to prove it. Now it's just like "yeah whatever". What an utmost lack of respect! Mother Nature is crying in a corner.
Another parallel I use to Deck Knight's analogy is swimming the open ocean. You will never drown if you don't swim, and there's always a chance of drowning, extremely sudden rip currents, and animal attack if you do, but responsible swimming skills (swimming with a life guard / learning how to tread and stroke / wisdom to avoid rip currents) will cut down on this to the point where the risk is so small, no one would realistically stop swimming because of it.
I have serious issues with incest - obviously there are cases where it's not a problem (brother and sister happen across each other for the first time in adulthood, etc) but I am deeply, deeply uncomfortable with the idea of parent/child relationships because I think due to the dynamic between them there will always be some level of coercion (if not outright grooming).
I just can't in my mind imagine who would be able to separate two people in love just because they were born with the same blood, which they musta ccurse everyday. It's cruel and pure prejudice.
Besides - and I follow the same line of tought with abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. - it's none of my business. I mean, who am I, who is ANYONE to judge them?
Although the point about genetic diseased and mutations is technically valid, it's crazy to apply it to real life.
For those who don't know, that's called EUGENICS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Next, we start start forbidding anyone with any genetic desease from having children. The we move on to anyone with any undesirable heritable characteristics. And the we're in holocaust again, kthxbai.
Ok, i may be exagerating, but you get the picture.
Besides - and I follow the same line of tought with abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. - it's none of my business. I mean, who am I, who is ANYONE to judge them?
Although the point about genetic diseased and mutations is technically valid, it's crazy to apply it to real life.
For those who don't know, that's called EUGENICS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Next, we start start forbidding anyone with any genetic desease from having children. The we move on to anyone with any undesirable heritable characteristics. And the we're in holocaust again, kthxbai.
Ok, i may be exagerating, but you get the picture.
I think my problem with incest stems from the fact that sex isn't just something that happens. There are innumerable mental side effects from engaging in sexual intercourse, and I think those are exacerbated by being involved with someone you're related to, whether it be parent, sibling, etc. I've had one night stands before, not that I'm proud of it, and it was easy to avoid contact with those people afterwards. How do you avoid your mother? Your brother? How would you go about making sure that what happened didn't completely turn your familial relationship upside-down?
Just my two cents.
Just my two cents.
Even if the conclusion is right, you have not given any reasoning. Thinking a relative is hot =/= incest.
Anyway, I don't really see what is objectively wrong with incest provided that both parties consent to it. Not that I would ever consent to it if I were one of the parties involved, but it's not really harming anyone unless one of them doesn't want it.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Seriously, if you cannot justify what do you think about a certain subject, how can you know that you are right?
What puzzles me so much about the attitude of certain people here is their idea of morality as something "you simply have". The fact that you are disgusted from one thing does not mean the thing is necessarily dirty, or nasty, or whatever. Most of time it has to do with your hidden fears, your social-influenced ideas, or your tendency to substitute yourselves to the people you are talking about (for example, imagining you fucking your brother/sister when reading the OP). Even if you feel all these repulsions, sometimes you have to stop and... what? think. Yes. You have to make one step back, and ask yourselves "why?". I mean, if I would make reasonments like yours, I'd probably want all the bees in the world killed, since I'm extremely afraid of them. But luckily, my mind knows when to hear to my feelings, and when to shut them up.
What I want to ask you is: do not think about this subject like "Would I do this thing?", but instead "Does them have the right to do it?". I find eating frogs to be disgusting, but I think you have the right to do it, since there is no rational reason to forbid it. On the contrary, I won't accept a cannibalist since, not only it disgusts me (a lot), but there are strong, social reason to forbid it (would you like to have the chance to be my dessert guys?). Now, ask yourselves sincerely: if you rule out the "mutated child" idea, are there enough RATIONAL reasons to think that a brother and a sister, at a mature age, cosciously decide to love each other? I don't think so, but I'll be glad to hear one if you have any.
Just do not come to tell me moral = irrational. They may have told this to you because - frankly - they were too stupid to figure it out by themselves, but moral is a completely rational subject. The reason why we don't kill, we don't steal (or at least, we think it should be illegal/immoral to do it) is simply rational. The reason why it is wrong (or at least, I hope you believe so) to be against homosexuality is because there are no rational arguments to oppose.
One last thing. It may be annoying, time consuming, frightening to a certain extent, but try to make an effort to think by yourselves. Don't hear to what other people (even me, of course) tell you passively. Try to figure out the reasons by yourselves and live your life, not someone else's
I have no problem with it but I do kinda agree with akuchi but even then it could be the child who comes on to the parent and the parent is fine with it. As for legalizing it I'm not sure it'd be good. I don't think incestuous relationships should be encouraged but should one happen... who cares. I don't care if they raise kids but I think it should either be an adoption or in vitro with another woman/sperm.
The birth defects argument is pretty awful, considering that birth defects aren't all that much more common if the parents are related, while there are things much more likely to cause birth defects that nobody would ever consider banning. For example, the women over 40 thing mentioned earlier in this thread. Or, drawing it further, the idea that we would force women whose echoes show they'll have a baby with a birth defect to have an abortion (what the fuck).
Also, I think that people with birth defects generally still enjoy being alive.
That aside, I strongly agree with akuchi (as always), only I believe the same thing extends to uncle/aunt-nephew/niece and brother/sister-brother/sister relationships. It's quite likely that there are problematic dynamics between people between whom there was such a drastic difference in power during childhood.
While I haven't decided where I stand on to what measure relationships/sex should be tolerated between these sets of people (infringing on personal freedom vs. problems with consent) I do consider this a good reason to ban marriages between related people, because it is tremendously more difficult to get out of a marriage than out of a relationship.
Also, I think that people with birth defects generally still enjoy being alive.
That aside, I strongly agree with akuchi (as always), only I believe the same thing extends to uncle/aunt-nephew/niece and brother/sister-brother/sister relationships. It's quite likely that there are problematic dynamics between people between whom there was such a drastic difference in power during childhood.
While I haven't decided where I stand on to what measure relationships/sex should be tolerated between these sets of people (infringing on personal freedom vs. problems with consent) I do consider this a good reason to ban marriages between related people, because it is tremendously more difficult to get out of a marriage than out of a relationship.
I don't think whether the child comes onto the parent or not matters. The parent is in a position of power, as an older sibling is likely to be (and any older relative - grandparent, aunt, uncle, whatever).
I'm not saying I think it's SICK AND WRONG and PEOPLE SHOULD BE BURNED. People fall in love in the most bizarre and unconventional situations. Frankly, as in the example I gave above (brother and sister, or brother and brother/sister and sister) meeting each other later in life and falling in love; that's unfortunate in many ways, but it's their own free choice.
However. I think that there is a duty to protect the vulnerable, even if said vulnerable are over the age of legal consent in certain situations. If you've spent the first twenty years of your life looking for parental affection, and said parent is now offering that affection by way of a fuck, that's coercion and it's wrong and it is abuse.
Incest, incest, incest... I always find it funny how people are strong advocates of homosexuality, when their same arguments could be used for incest and polygamy. Usually when those 2 topics are brought up to them, they think it's wrong. Double standard?
As for me, I don't think incest should be allowed between brothers, sisters, parents, and that kind of stuff, but between cousins, I don't think it's really deranged or anything. I know people married to their cousins (under the table, since we live in America), and they're a happy couple, and have perfectly fine babies.
That said, if your parents are related, I would probably advise against incest for that person.
As for me, I don't think incest should be allowed between brothers, sisters, parents, and that kind of stuff, but between cousins, I don't think it's really deranged or anything. I know people married to their cousins (under the table, since we live in America), and they're a happy couple, and have perfectly fine babies.
That said, if your parents are related, I would probably advise against incest for that person.
Incest is a pretty hard concept to cover, since there are a lot of instances where it could occur. But, I think that this sort of thing happens more when you haven't met your cousins/siblings in a long time, or never in your life before, and you see them as just another person. (That you can later down the line have sex with, whatever) But if you have a good relationship with them, and have grown up with them, then it's probably less likely to happen.
Personally though, I think it really depends what sort of Incest you're talking about. Mothers/Fathers... ew... Sisters/Brothers, pretty wrong, but I could see it happening, First Cousins, eh, still bad, but not AS bad, and second cousins by marraige, yeah, pretty easy to happen I'd say. I mean, your second cousins aren't technically related to you, so no harm done, right?
You know, there acually was a case of first cousin marraige way back in my family, ~4 generations ago. ...Virginia. >_>
Personally though, I think it really depends what sort of Incest you're talking about. Mothers/Fathers... ew... Sisters/Brothers, pretty wrong, but I could see it happening, First Cousins, eh, still bad, but not AS bad, and second cousins by marraige, yeah, pretty easy to happen I'd say. I mean, your second cousins aren't technically related to you, so no harm done, right?
You know, there acually was a case of first cousin marraige way back in my family, ~4 generations ago. ...Virginia. >_>
A lot of people touched on my believe toward the topic.
Its their choice.
Both of legal age.
Do not harm anyone else.
However, the third one is what bugs me. People say that "by engaging in sex and risking in a mutated baby" is a terrible argument and I have to question why. They made the choice to risk a persons, the babies, health and that just doesn't sit even with me. "Well there is a only small chance," only a small chance... would you risk your life if you knew you had a small chance of becoming permanently damaged or even possibly die? I dunno...
Also, lets say that they do have the baby. Sure the baby may not have any noticeable birth defects however chances are that it's genetics are fucked up and if they have kids they could pass their "bad" genetic code to their kids.
I'm all about people doing what they want... Incest, Gay, and whatever else people do but when it affects/harms the babies/kids/others than that's where I draw the line.
Long story short... incest couples, gay couples, convicted felons, and so on should not be able to have kids.
Its their choice.
Both of legal age.
Do not harm anyone else.
However, the third one is what bugs me. People say that "by engaging in sex and risking in a mutated baby" is a terrible argument and I have to question why. They made the choice to risk a persons, the babies, health and that just doesn't sit even with me. "Well there is a only small chance," only a small chance... would you risk your life if you knew you had a small chance of becoming permanently damaged or even possibly die? I dunno...
Also, lets say that they do have the baby. Sure the baby may not have any noticeable birth defects however chances are that it's genetics are fucked up and if they have kids they could pass their "bad" genetic code to their kids.
I'm all about people doing what they want... Incest, Gay, and whatever else people do but when it affects/harms the babies/kids/others than that's where I draw the line.
Long story short... incest couples, gay couples, convicted felons, and so on should not be able to have kids.
where the hell did you get "gay people should not have children" from
also see: Griffin's post
incest is fine. and while i'm wary of parent/child or other such relationships with potential for power abuse, i do not think they should be illegal. it might be wrong for someone to take advantage like that but if neither of them wants out of it the government shouldn't be involved.
Alright, here's the thing about incest and genetics: The probability of genetic defects and abnormalities does go up, but only after many generations of close inbreeding. And so, it's is tremendously bad, from a genetic standpoint.
The reason why is not because they are related, but because their genetics are similar.* The whole purpose of genes is to make variations of a type of species so they may adapt better to their current environment, a slightly different one, or a completely new one, so the more differed the genetics of the parents, the more likely the offspring will have varied genes, increasing its chance of having an advantageous gene and negating the effect of bad genes, thus increasing the probability of surviving and passing on its own genetic code**. Also this variation helps offset the effect of genetic mutations, which can be good, but the majority are bad for the species.
Now, if two genetically similar people produce an offspring(i.e. family members), because they are genetically similar the mutations in their genes will most likely be extremely similar and thus amplified. After several generations of amplification and inbreeding, the offspring will become more and more similar and the negative mutations in their genetic code will occur unchecked, because their is no dominant mutation in the genetic code of the parents to cancel them out. This is also true for positive mutations, but they are far less likely and any that do occur will not be able to make up for all the negative ones that are already present.
So, in summary: After generations of inbreeding/incest bad mutations build up and the offspring are not as good genetically when compared to offspring from families without incest.
*I know the two go hand in hand but in theory if you took two genetically similar people, like they were brother and sister (but not brother and sister), that were not closely related and breed their offspring with others who were similar to them, like siblings, (but not siblings) at continued this patter you would get the same effect as if they were family, even thought they weren't.
**This is the goal of all life: Survive and reproduce.
On another thing mentioned in this thread, this explains nature's "defense," if you will, against incest.
As for my opinion: It's weird and creepy, but I can understand why it might happen. If they choose to have a child, that's their choice, not mine.
Why not? Is there any evidence that gay people are unable to raise kids just as well as heterosexuals?
While this is a little off-topic
I'm pretty sure nothing I cut out of this quote actually related to anything I left in it, and those are some awfully bold assertions I'd love to see you try to back up.
While I think you might have an interesting argument with the felons you have three completely different cases there and lumping them all together as if they were same case is completely asinine, and frankly very intellectually lazy.
I'd originally thought about saying "it's not like the first two groups have committed any crimes", but no, the convicted felon claim is just as ridiculous and I don't want to refute the first two by giving that a nod. "Felons" is already a really broad term... so people who committed some of the more legally punishable robberies or sold drugs shouldn't be allowed to have children? I would say "people change", but frankly even if they don't I find it highly unlikely they're any more morally corrupt than your average parent. People are always going to have different views, I'm sure you'll teach your kids things when you're an adult I'd find just as unacceptable as someone who has lived a shadier life will teach theirs(or maybe they'll just impart wisdom that it isn't worth it and to stay clean).
I assume based on what you lumped it in with you're using a moral argument for the incestuous couples, as well as the gay couples, which I think is pretty silly as well. I don't think it's unrealistic that it's going to be something in either case that the kid has to come to terms with some day, but I haven't met too many people who have any interest in being mirror images of their parents. Even mixed race parents are a pretty good comparison, but the kid has to figure out what the kid is going to be in the future, not what the parents are.
The gay couple adoption thing always drives me insane. There's a shortage of homes with loving parents; most adoption agencies and orphanages already have issues finding homes for kids who need them. Why deprive potentially loving and capable parents because of your own political agenda? That type of foolish value crusading doesn't help the kids or the parents.
I'm pretty sure nothing I cut out of this quote actually related to anything I left in it, and those are some awfully bold assertions I'd love to see you try to back up.
While I think you might have an interesting argument with the felons you have three completely different cases there and lumping them all together as if they were same case is completely asinine, and frankly very intellectually lazy.
I'd originally thought about saying "it's not like the first two groups have committed any crimes", but no, the convicted felon claim is just as ridiculous and I don't want to refute the first two by giving that a nod. "Felons" is already a really broad term... so people who committed some of the more legally punishable robberies or sold drugs shouldn't be allowed to have children? I would say "people change", but frankly even if they don't I find it highly unlikely they're any more morally corrupt than your average parent. People are always going to have different views, I'm sure you'll teach your kids things when you're an adult I'd find just as unacceptable as someone who has lived a shadier life will teach theirs(or maybe they'll just impart wisdom that it isn't worth it and to stay clean).
I assume based on what you lumped it in with you're using a moral argument for the incestuous couples, as well as the gay couples, which I think is pretty silly as well. I don't think it's unrealistic that it's going to be something in either case that the kid has to come to terms with some day, but I haven't met too many people who have any interest in being mirror images of their parents. Even mixed race parents are a pretty good comparison, but the kid has to figure out what the kid is going to be in the future, not what the parents are.
The gay couple adoption thing always drives me insane. There's a shortage of homes with loving parents; most adoption agencies and orphanages already have issues finding homes for kids who need them. Why deprive potentially loving and capable parents because of your own political agenda? That type of foolish value crusading doesn't help the kids or the parents.
Morality aside, it's true that 5/6 times it has no complications, but if it were to become socially acceptable then the odds of consecutive generations performing the act would multiply greatly.
THAT is where the issues come from. Humanity has the most polluted gene pool by an observed margin. So care should be taken not to increase these issues.
If you have a family where incest is acceptable, that family is far more likely to incest more. Meaning that subsequent generations have a comparative far higher chance of genetic abnormality
THAT is where the issues come from. Humanity has the most polluted gene pool by an observed margin. So care should be taken not to increase these issues.
If you have a family where incest is acceptable, that family is far more likely to incest more. Meaning that subsequent generations have a comparative far higher chance of genetic abnormality
The Westermarck was a really good point (I honestly feel attracted to my cousins on the other side of the continent because I met them when I was 11).
Then we look at the natural side of why incest occurs.
Specifically, kangaroos. The mother kicks the son out of the family as soon as it hits puberty to prevent it from going after its sister.
As soon as we hit puberty, the hormones cloud us. When analysing somebody, we look for traits we want passed down. It is not your own fault if a relative has a trait you want passed down.
As for marriage, we look for somebody we can, at the very least, tolerate our entire lives. Somebody that will make us happy. If a relative does that for you, why keep them from happiness?
Laws should only exist to prevent harm. Not to appease a group of whiny people.
Then we look at the natural side of why incest occurs.
Specifically, kangaroos. The mother kicks the son out of the family as soon as it hits puberty to prevent it from going after its sister.
As soon as we hit puberty, the hormones cloud us. When analysing somebody, we look for traits we want passed down. It is not your own fault if a relative has a trait you want passed down.
As for marriage, we look for somebody we can, at the very least, tolerate our entire lives. Somebody that will make us happy. If a relative does that for you, why keep them from happiness?
Laws should only exist to prevent harm. Not to appease a group of whiny people.
11's pretty young but I'm not going to judge.
Natural side? That's a very specific example and I'm pretty sure that there are other reasons for the males leaving their herd/tribe/whatever. I think that it's to keep numbers down because Kangaroos are nomadic and cannot be too big or they'll overgraze the land they travel and starve. That's just me though.
Are you sure that the first sentence fits with the rest of your paragraph. Let me ask you a rhetorical question or two, why do people masturbate? They do it because it feels good. Why do people have sex with people they don't like consensually? Because it feels good. Why do many people who fuck their relatives fuck their relatives? Because it feels good and a relative will do in a pinch. Confusing high school horniness with love is a very, very silly thing to do.
Sure thing, I don't mind this. I'm not against someone experiencing love. I don't think anyone in this thread sees relatives who clearly love each other as harmful except Deck Knight, but he thinks a lot of things. Most of us believe the practice of incest be fine, we might find it disgusting but we do not think that it's morally wrong and we wouldn't accost someone verbally for practicing it.
I agree with this but there are sound biological reasons as to why incest is harmful. The law that prevents incest is looking at preventing harm.