Incest - Good, Bad, Ugly?

The Giant Noodle said:

Its mother ****ing DISGUSTING!!!! Im mean seriously... do we even need to have a poll on this!?!?

Click to expand...

Many people think that about many issues. You're not an exception.

I did some probing on Google, and I was disgusted to find so many incestual people.

But since when is disgust a good enough reason to stop others? So what if the child is born somewhat defected - is it not their child they will raise? Many people did so in the past, yet it seems we generations are somewhat OK, perhaps? Babies come out premature. Should we fault the mother if she decides to give birth earlier? It is their sex life, their choice. It's not as though they are aborting the child, right? Is not death worse than living a life with some good memories?

*This is when I sarcasticly comment about bigotry.

**Oh, and "mother******" would become hate speech, lol.

I haven't read the thread, because it's probably already been derailed anyway. This will shock some people, but I don't believe the government should be in the business of making sexual activity between consenting adults illegal, period. To me incest is the ultimate ICK! factor, something that I would never do and I'll admit I'd be queasy if a married brother/sister moved in next door to me. But I don't think it's my right to say that it's wrong for them just because it's sure as hell wrong for me.

I wouldn't be in a polygamous marriage either, but I don't believe the government should make it illegal.

Let me be clear, I'm saying that presuming the first sexual contact was made when both participates were adults, I do not believe it should be illegal. Any sextual contact, especially incestuous abuse, against a child... illegal as hell and throw the book at 'em.

Wake said:

Many people think that about many issues. You're not an exception.

I did some probing on Google, and I was disgusted to find so many incestual people.

But since when is disgust a good enough reason to stop others? So what if the child is born somewhat defected - is it not their child they will raise? Many people did so in the past, yet it seems we generations are somewhat OK, perhaps? Babies come out premature. Should we fault the mother if she decides to give birth earlier? It is their sex life, their choice. It's not as though they are aborting the child, right? Is not death worse than living a life with some good memories?

*This is when I sarcasticly comment about bigotry.

**Oh, and "mother******" would become hate speech, lol.

Click to expand...

:crazy3:........ :wassat1:

DiAnna said:

I haven't read the thread, because it's probably already been derailed anyway. This will shock some people, but I don't believe the government should be in the business of making sexual activity between consenting adults illegal, period. To me incest is the ultimate ICK! factor, something that I would never do and I'll admit I'd be queasy if a married brother/sister moved in next door to me. But I don't think it's my right to say that it's wrong for them just because it's sure as hell wrong for me.

I wouldn't be in a polygamous marriage either, but I don't believe the government should make it illegal.

Let me be clear, I'm saying that presuming the first sexual contact was made when both participates were adults, I do not believe it should be illegal. Any sextual contact, especially incestuous abuse, against a child... illegal as hell and throw the book at 'em.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, I also have only read a few of the posts but sex between consenting adults isnt anybody's business no matter how "I" view it.

...interesting, these various responses.

P.S.: Don't say inflammatory things and then have the nerve to act surprised when people react.

Wake said:

...or harmless? Is consensual incest legal? If not, then why is society so morally bigoted? Since it's harmless and consensual, should it not only be legalized, but also given support as a group? Should we mention it in school? Allow ancestral marriages, etc? Should society stop being bigoted and slowly learn to accept it? It's against the Bible? Who cares?

Click to expand...

It is harmful to society and thus should not be tolerated. If it is mentioned in school, it should only be mentioned in this context.

This is one of those rare cases where I agree with the Bible.

tessaesque said:

Incestual relationships are more likely to produce genetically defective offspring.

Click to expand...

Arcana XV said:

I don't care what consenting adults do. If they want to risk having abnormal children that is their problem. But if they have a shred of decency and are of average intelligence they will take the necessary precautions not to get pregnant. Like women in their 40s also have to take similar precautions due to the increased risk of fetal abnormality. Same thing.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

I am against incest for the harm to offspring issue.

Click to expand...

They're more likely, but it isn't particularly likely until it's occurred for a few generations in a row. Blood first cousins aren't any more likely to produce defective offspring than 40 year old women, and blood siblings aren't particularly more likely than that.

Wake said:

Who cares about the child? We do legion abortions, Baralis.

Click to expand...

Leaving aside the argument against "defective children" as more or less irrelevant to the point, I would point out that abortion doesn't produce a defective child. We should care very much about children that are actually born.

Wake said:

It's a person's right to consensual sex, is it not?

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. If what they are doing is wrong, they do not have the right to do it.

Wake said:

Who are you to stop them?

Click to expand...

Who are you to stop me from stopping them?

roguenuke said:

Very rarely are you going to find a case where a brother and sister, separated at birth, find each other and fall in love. It happens, sure, but it isn't the vast majority of incest cases.

Click to expand...

I'll go further and argue that a blood brother and sister, separated at birth and raised by different families, shouldn't fall under the incest laws at all. I'm not concerned with blood. On the other hand, I think the incest laws should apply in full force against siblings, adopted or otherwise, who are raised within the same family. Incest is harmful because of what it does to families and their interactions with outside society.

roguenuke said:

Now, I would say that certain cases of incest should be able to petition for marriage rights, such as a step-brother and step-sister who didn't grow up together and are around the same age or an adult stepchild who wasn't raised by a stepparent and possibly even the rare case of the brother and sister who weren't raised together (although they should at least have to be provided genetic counseling). And I have no problem with first cousins and farther out relations marrying.

Click to expand...

I'm actually not entirely certain that incest laws-- and the prohibition on incestuous marriage-- applies to step-siblings in the first place. I am divided on the issue of whether it even should, because of the wide variances possible between step-siblings raised together from birth and adult step-siblings who meet each other first at their respective parent's wedding. If step-siblings are not allowed to marry, should parents be prohibited from marrying their childrens' in-laws? This is problematic, but I do not see it as problematic as siblings or even first cousins marrying and I'm not inclined to say that it should be illegal unless the step-siblings in question were undoubtedly raised together.

DiAnna said:

I wouldn't be in a polygamous marriage either, but I don't believe the government should make it illegal.

Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to polygamy. I even think a man should be allowed to marry siblings, as long as he himself is not related to them. Reconciling my ideal marriage laws with my ideal incest laws would be problematic and complicated, but in principle as long as the marriage involves a union between two or more families, it is acceptable.

I could care less if adults kin to each other wish to bang away but have a problem with them reproducing due to the ill effects it could have on a fetus.

You a legal adult and wanna bang your whole adult family? Go ahead but please do not breed.

Wake said:

Did I do so here, digsbe?

Tell me what you percieve, and I will tell you what I said.

Click to expand...

I kinda saw it as a bait thread. The common argument of many who oppose SSM say that it will lead to the legalized weddings of deviant sexual behaviors like incest or bestiality. I don't know anyone in the gay rights movement who fights for legalized incest weddings. Forgive me if I've misjudged, but I saw it as somewhat of a bait thread.

Viktyr Korimir said:

They're more likely, but it isn't particularly likely until it's occurred for a few generations in a row. Blood first cousins aren't any more likely to produce defective offspring than 40 year old women, and blood siblings aren't particularly more likely than that.

Click to expand...

Actually, I read that there is growing evidence that there are at least a few problems that come from 1st generation incest, like developmental issues and behavioral problems.

DNA Tests of Disabled Kids Uncover Evidence of Incest | TIME Healthland
Children of incest. [J Pediatr. 1982] - PubMed result
DNA suggesting incest raises concerns - UPI.com

I'm not sure how accurate/sound these studies are, but it seems that they are finding that it isn't just generational incest that we have to worry about. Children of 1st generational incest still appear to exhibit more problems, on average, than other children.

Viktyr Korimir said:

I'm actually not entirely certain that incest laws-- and the prohibition on incestuous marriage-- applies to step-siblings in the first place. I am divided on the issue of whether it even should, because of the wide variances possible between step-siblings raised together from birth and adult step-siblings who meet each other first at their respective parent's wedding. If step-siblings are not allowed to marry, should parents be prohibited from marrying their childrens' in-laws? This is problematic, but I do not see it as problematic as siblings or even first cousins marrying and I'm not inclined to say that it should be illegal unless the step-siblings in question were undoubtedly raised together.

Click to expand...

It depends on the state. In some states, it is considered incest to sleep with an inlaw, so it just depends.

I understand the step-siblings if they were raised together from a pretty young age and there seems to be some influence by one or the other. I don't agree with the inlaws incest thing at all because it doesn't fit into either of my concerns unless it is the vary rare circumstance where the two un-blood related families were living together for a while and there was some sort of influence that began before one of the two involved was old enough to consent (which is not very likely to be most cases of this happening).

Personally, I find incest to be pretty gross.

However, if adults want to have consensual sexual relationships with their close relatives, I think it should be legal.

I'm a little more against inbreeding, since there is an increased risk of genetic abnormalities there, but even that I don't feel strongly enough about to make it illegal.

And let's not forget that certain kinds of incestuous marriages are legal in the united states. It's legal to marry a second cousin anywhere in the country. There are several states where you can legally marry a first cousin without restrictions. Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces under some circumstances.

It's all just a matter of degree.

If it's harmless, it's not wrong, then.

Even if the child is "damaged", who the Hell do you think you are to stop two consenting adults from having sex? Bigot!

*And the plot thickens.

Wake said:

If it's harmless, it's not wrong, then.

Even if the child is "damaged", who the Hell do you think you are to stop two consenting adults from having sex? Bigot!

*And the plot thickens.

Click to expand...

That is not what he said. Why insist on putting words in his mouth?

Redress said:

That is not what he said. Why insist on putting words in his mouth?

Click to expand...

Who's mouth am I refering to, Redress?

Not his.

I talk of people both religious or not against incest.

But since you blundered in, are you tolerant of consenting incest adults?

two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the **** they want.

Obviously inbreeding is more problematic.

Whether incest is "wrong" is entirely subjective and is based on one's subjective values.

Aside from the inbreeding issue, many object to incest for the same reason they do homosexual intercourse - it's icky. <--that shouldn't be the basis for legality.

StillBallin75 said:

two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the **** they want.

Obviously inbreeding is more problematic.

Whether incest is "wrong" is entirely subjective and is based on one's subjective values.

Aside from the inbreeding issue, many object to incest for the same reason they do homosexual intercourse - it's icky. <--that shouldn't be the basis for legality.

Click to expand...

Fer real, yo. Get laid.

mac said:

Fer real, yo. Get laid.

Click to expand...

don't need to say it twice lol.

StillBallin75 said:

two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the **** they want.

Obviously inbreeding is more problematic.

Whether incest is "wrong" is entirely subjective and is based on one's subjective values.

Aside from the inbreeding issue, many object to incest for the same reason they do homosexual intercourse - it's icky. <--that shouldn't be the basis for legality.

Click to expand...

Exactly, though I'm definitely D. A. on this.

It simply humors me when certain pro-homosexuality liberals, who are "tolerant", freak out on this in a morally-bigoted fashion.

Lol.

jamesrage said:

Incest is wrong. I could care less if you call me a bigot for wanting incest banned.

Click to expand...

what makes it wrong, forrealz dawg?

StillBallin75 said:

two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the **** they want.

Obviously inbreeding is more problematic.

Whether incest is "wrong" is entirely subjective and is based on one's subjective values.

Aside from the inbreeding issue, many object to incest for the same reason they do homosexual intercourse - it's icky. <--that shouldn't be the basis for legality.

Click to expand...

I base my biggest objection to it on the fact that many sibling relationships begin during early childhood and/or prepubesence, not during adulthood. There is reason to believe that at least some of these relationships are not healthy relationships, a lot like teacher/student relationships, counselor/patient relationships, or parent/child relationships because there is no way to know how much the relationship developed naturally or how much it was influenced by the slight authority that one sibling would have over another sibling if they were raised together during early childhood, and most especially the bigger the age difference between the two siblings is.

I don't think that we should encourage such relationships in general, but there certainly could be some considerations made for siblings who weren't raised together and possibly other reasons.

It is not the same issue as homosexuality though. And people being against incest but being for homosexuality are not being hypocritical when they can give sound reason for their objections that really are more than just "it's icky" or "it's against my morality". You may not agree that the reasoning is enough to justify preventing them from having the right to be together but it doesn't mean that it isn't at least a better argument than those who are anti-homosexuality and/or anti-SSM.

Along with this, siblings already do have some of the legal rights that homosexuals are being denied by the very virtue of being siblings. Blood relatives automatically are granted some legal recognition, although it is not nearly as much as spouses, it is more than just roommates or girlfriends/boyfriends.

roguenuke said:

I base my biggest objection to it on the fact that many sibling relationships begin during early childhood and/or prepubesence, not during adulthood. There is reason to believe that at least some of these relationships are not healthy relationships, a lot like teacher/student relationships, counselor/patient relationships, or parent/child relationships because there is no way to know how much the relationship developed naturally or how much it was influenced by the slight authority that one sibling would have over another sibling if they were raised together during early childhood, and most especially the bigger the age difference between the two siblings is.

I don't think that we should encourage such relationships in general, but there certainly could be some considerations made for siblings who weren't raised together and possibly other reasons.

It is not the same issue as homosexuality though. And people being against incest but being for homosexuality are not being hypocritical when they can give sound reason for their objections that really are more than just "it's icky" or "it's against my morality". You may not agree that the reasoning is enough to justify preventing them from having the right to be together but it doesn't mean that it isn't at least a better argument than those who are anti-homosexuality and/or anti-SSM.

Along with this, siblings already do have some of the legal rights that homosexuals are being denied by the very virtue of being siblings. Blood relatives automatically are granted some legal recognition, although it is not nearly as much as spouses, it is more than just roommates or girlfriends/boyfriends.

Click to expand...

fair points, but I believe that establishing whether or not a relationship is "healthy" is a truly subjective exercise...after all, being a homosexual couple in puritanical New England probably wasn't very healthy either.

StillBallin75 said:

fair points, but I believe that establishing whether or not a relationship is "healthy" is a truly subjective exercise...after all, being a homosexual couple in puritanical New England probably wasn't very healthy either.

Click to expand...

True, but we establish that we believe certain types of relationships are automatically going to be "unhealthy", such as the ones I listed, based on generally pyschological studies and reviews. The studies should be conducted by qualified pyschologists and peer reviewed. How do we determine that student/teacher relationships are wrong, even if the student is over 18? How do we determine that a counselor/patient relationship is wrong? And, it could easily be argued whether we should consider parent/child relationships after the child reaches adulthood as wrong or not as well, especially if the child was not raised in the house with that parent or had very little contact with the parent.

I don't honestly know where we should set the threshold because I am not a psychologist of any kind, but I believe that most studies I have come across have said that many sibling relationships start because of abusive and/or neglectful parents.

I have a relative who was abused as a child by his older brother. It definitely affected him. But there wasn't that big of a gap in their ages and, I don't know all the details, but it didn't sound from what I do know like it was violent, just sexual. I know this is just anecdotal, but it seems to be the normal for most of those situations like this that I have heard about, online or the one on the stereo (sounds weird, but it was on a call-in show).

Wake said:

Who's mouth am I refering to, Redress?

Not his.

I talk of people both religious or not against incest.

But since you blundered in, are you tolerant of consenting incest adults?

Click to expand...

So you where not trying to assign a position to any one person, just claiming that people are adopting a position they are not.

roguenuke said:

True, but we establish that we believe certain types of relationships are automatically going to be "unhealthy", such as the ones I listed, based on generally pyschological studies and reviews. The studies should be conducted by qualified pyschologists and peer reviewed. How do we determine that student/teacher relationships are wrong, even if the student is over 18? How do we determine that a counselor/patient relationship is wrong? And, it could easily be argued whether we should consider parent/child relationships after the child reaches adulthood as wrong or not as well, especially if the child was not raised in the house with that parent or had very little contact with the parent.

I don't honestly know where we should set the threshold because I am not a psychologist of any kind, but I believe that most studies I have come across have said that many sibling relationships start because of abusive and/or neglectful parents.

I have a relative who was abused as a child by his older brother. It definitely affected him. But there wasn't that big of a gap in their ages and, I don't know all the details, but it didn't sound from what I do know like it was violent, just sexual. I know this is just anecdotal, but it seems to be the normal for most of those situations like this that I have heard about, online or the one on the stereo (sounds weird, but it was on a call-in show).

Click to expand...

Everything you've said here is a good point, however personally I think each relationship should be judged on its own merits. Surely there are tons and tons of heterosexual, non-incestual relationships that are just as unhealthy. Perhaps incestual relationships are inherently more so, but legally I don't think there should be a ban on incest marriage if two consenting individuals want to do that.

And i'm also interested to know how much of the "unhealthiness" in incestual relationships is inherent, and how much of it is socially constructed.

Hawt?