Incest, explain your stance without bringing up genetics.

[Aesir23]

Sorry OP, you can't exactly exclude genetics from the argument because it's the primary reason people have such a problem with it. Otherwise marrying within your own family would still be as common as it was even as recent as 150 years ago (at least among the wealthy). Sure, one incident of inbreeding won't mean that you'll automatically pop out a child with horrific health problems but it's not a good idea to have sustained inbreeding over a long period of time. The prime example being Charles II of Spain of the infamous Hapsburg family. His family tree looked like a ball of yarn by the time it got to him and he was suffering from some pretty serious problems.

That said, if there were no genetic problems with it and the people involved were mutually consenting adults then I have no reason to be opposed to it.

 

[Keith Pullman]

CONSENSUAL incest is not wrong. (Abuse victims: being abused by a relative does not make it wrong for others to have consensual incest, any more than rape by a stranger makes all sex wrong. Sex and assault/molestation are two different things.) An aversion became common in humans that aided in population growth as one disease couldn't wipe out the human race. That's not a problem anymore.

Consensual incest is very common. You know people who have been involved, whether you know it or not.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY and ALL consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we? If someone thinks YOUR love life is disgusting, should you be thrown in prison?

Some people do try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to ?mutant? or ?deformed? babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don?t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. Ever hear of Huntington's Disease? It is perfectly legal for people with that to marry and reproduce. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can?t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say ?There is a power differential.? This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning. A 20-year-old woman can consent to group sex with five 40-something-year-old strangers, or the President of the United States, but can't consent to sex with her 21-year-old brother?

Some say ?There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one?s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either.

Don't like it? Don't do it. But let other people have the relationships they want.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Did you read the rest of my post? And why would you chance a 25% abnormality that could cripple a person from birth just because you lack social skills and are only able to get close to a family member because they're a captive audience? I would never knowingly procreate with a incest human to avoid medical complications, and so should everyone else. Yeah, the effects of inbreeding could be stifled, but only over the course of several generations. That's a lot of dead babies. And the only way for that to be viable is if that inbred family stayed on an island detached from any outside genes, forever. So yeah, lets not kill off the human race please. Also, I didn't make any mention of mutant tentacle babies, so I'm not sure why you went off on a tangent.

I don't like incest mainly because of the genetic distortion and how making it acceptable could damage the gene pool. Darwin's already slacking enough as it is. If there were no risk of genetic defects, then I wouldn't give a damn, just like gay sex. I wouldn't oppose it, but I would still find it icky, and I'm free to that opinion.

Oh everything after the first paragraph wasnt for you. I did read your post, this was just a general rant because the tentacle babies thing is super annoying for me, i never meant to imply YOU did it, i just picked you at random and typed the rest of my post. Hell i never said i didnt agree with you btw. Your reasoning is A ok and youre very entitled to your opinion. Just dont fall into the trap of trying to bend reality to fit opinions. Genetics is an argument yes. Just not as strong as some people wish it was and thus pretend it is. Seriously i dont love either side more than the other on this issue. What i love is biology and facts. And no matter what your cause is, even if i agree with you, tainting my beautiful subject will piss me off. A lot. So dont get me wrong. Im not partial to incest at all.

While i understand your general premise isnt the same argument pretty much used to justify sterilizing people whose kids, with ANYONE, would have a greater than 25% chance of deformity? This is why this discussion weirds me out.

When i discovered the 25% statistic i realised it was identical to the % chance of a cystic fibrosis or other genetic disorder sufferer would have making babies with anyone regardless of familial lineage. It makes it rather hard to argue from that angle.

I mean hell if you think incest shouldnt happen EVER just because babies might happen isnt the same logic applicable, not just to ban babies for those with disorders but to ban them entirely from sex as well? Im not particularly invested either way but the arguments each have some weird lines of logic coming from them.

 

[Jacco]

Donor? Donating what? Doesn't sound like you're talking about sex when you bring up donors. Do you have any sources supporting your contention that a single generation of incest will negatively effect the offspring? And if so to what degree? My point about older women (and to a lesser degree older men) is a variable risk. The older the participants, the greater the risk. Are you alleging that even a normal 90 yr old couple still has less risk than a pair of 20 something cousins/siblings would have of genetic defects? If not then at what age should we also keep older couple's from having sex?

Sperm donor; simply meaning the man who provides the sperm to fertilize the egg in whatever method.

I have seen sources somewhere. I'd have to find them but I'm not going to spend the time doing that for an internet debate no one actually gives a shit about. Too much work and I have finals.

The older the participants are also comes with a lower risk of pregnancy. Short of hormone therapy meant to keep it going (or in the case of a woman recently, to start it back up), most women stop menstruating by age 60. No menstruation means no baby so the possibility of genetic defects becomes a moot point. Now if you want to argue the ethics of having a baby past age 60, then that is a different discussion and my stance would remain the same.

Regardless, unless there is no chance of pregnancy between the incestuous couple, incest should not happen. Period. If one or both are sterile, then I guess I don't see a problem with it outside of it bucking societal norms.

You do realize that sperm donors don't actually have sex with the woman in question right? And in the interest of not being sexist, ill go ahead and throw old men into the ring too since they can still procreate till death, but also with increased odds of defects. If your unwilling to obtain sources, rather than debate the point, ill let it stand. I'm just looking for consistency. If your primary concern is genetic fitness than it would be just as reasonable to argue against old people having sex as well. Anything else is just inconsistent reasoning.

A sperm donor is any man who provides the sperm to fertilize the egg, whether through tradition methods, In-Vitro/GIFT/ZIFT/whatever. You can say sperm provider if you like but its the same thing. Ive already given you that older people have less fit gametes to offer, but I also said it is a moot point because once menstruation stops, babies cannot be produced therefore any genetic abnormalities in the gametes make no difference.

If you want the sources, you can look for them. I just don't have the time or motivation to do so for a debate on a video game forum. And I am debating the point. I could just as easily ask you for sources supporting your statement but I'm not going to (and don't bother providing them because honestly I won't look at them) because because this debate, at its core, it between (I assume you don't have a PhD in reproductive genetics cause I sure as hell don't) laymen.

My point is that as long as a child cannot come out of it, then its fine I guess assuming consent of all parties. Old people are far less likely to conceive and so whether they have sex is a moot point. Siblings in their twenties are far more likely to conceive and thus should be stopped for the sake of potential children. There is a reason even most pro-life groups stipulate that abortion is acceptable in cases of incest. If one or both parties are sterile, as I said, I have no problem with it outside of the expected societal objections which are in themselves no a proper platform to stand on as this thread has demonstrated.