Scientifically? Now I'm going to ask for your proof. Either way, an easy way to test it would be to find to genetically related siblings that were adopted by different parents and set them up on a date of some sort. Although, this particular banter seems rather pointless, and slightly off the main topic...Uhm, scientifically; opposites attract. Different immune systems and different DNA is basically what "attracts", along with a range of other things that we don't know a lot about yet. Naturally it has something to do with tradition, but I still don't think that's the primary cause.
Incest, should it be legal?
Started by
Guest_Triss
, Jun 09 2008 03:29 AM
209 replies to this topic
#151
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 15 August 2008 - 04:12 AM
#152
Guest_alude904
Guest_alude904
-
- Guest
Posted 20 August 2008 - 12:23 AM
Wow... with respect to the forum rules, the only thing I will be saying is that incest should be illegalPOINTS were deducted for this post by KHRSPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#153
Guest_Deathguard
Guest_Deathguard
-
- Guest
Posted 23 August 2008 - 03:10 PM
Many of the responses seem to simply be "It should be illegal it's wrong."Question for you all;WHY is it wrong? WHY should it be illegal?
#154
Guest_behindthenine
Guest_behindthenine
-
- Guest
Posted 23 August 2008 - 07:50 PM
:)are you kidding?are you telling me you would bang your sister(if you even have one)?would you bang your mom or dad? thats just sick! you should be banned for asking that question! we dont even need an answer! its just wrong! anyone that does it is a freak!POINTS were deducted for this post by KHRSPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.Many of the responses seem to simply be "It should be illegal it's wrong."Question for you all;WHY is it wrong? WHY should it be illegal?
#155
Guest_Yoto Azumati
Guest_Yoto Azumati
-
- Guest
Posted 23 August 2008 - 09:51 PM
Incest, whether it is gross or not, is quite illegal. not only that, but the repurcussions of incest are extremely serious. These consequences are generally transmitted to the child while the parents walk free. I would be very disturbed If I discovered that incest were to be legal because where would the line stop extending? You believe that incest should be legal because people should be allowed to love who they want. What if sommeone loved an animal? Or their grandchildren? We would lose control rather quickly.
#156
Guest_Balore
Guest_Balore
-
- Guest
Posted 23 August 2008 - 10:17 PM
It's not illegal everywhere, you know, but yes, in most areas, it is. Most of the serious repercussions stem from the social ostracization of individuals in an incestuous relationship, not from incest, itself, although dealing with such things as your child's (if you should choose to have one naturally or even unnaturally) nonacceptance and consequential emotional distress are indeed difficult problems to deal with, but pointing this out is no more to the point than it is to point out similar problems relating to a gay couple's child.You can't seriously relate the love of two consenting adults to that of animals or children. Please, that's ridiculous and unjustly insulting. In the case of loving an animal, they can't consent or share the same form of love towards you, and in the case of children, it's almost a complete guarantee that they won't be on the same level as you, intellectually, and therefore won't be able to realize the seriousness of a relationship or be able to understand their feelings fully, and are thus highly susceptible to emotional befuddlement.I don't see how you could possibly back up your argument that the acceptance of incest would lead to such totally unrelated things.Incest, whether it is gross or not, is quite illegal. not only that, but the repurcussions of incest are extremely serious. These consequences are generally transmitted to the child while the parents walk free. I would be very disturbed If I discovered that incest were to be legal because where would the line stop extending? You believe that incest should be legal because people should be allowed to love who they want. What if sommeone loved an animal? Or their grandchildren? We would lose control rather quickly.
Edited by Balore, 24 August 2008 - 02:43 AM.
#157
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 25 August 2008 - 05:43 AM
Those questions have been answered quite a few times alreadyMany of the responses seem to simply be "It should be illegal it's wrong."Question for you all;WHY is it wrong? WHY should it be illegal?
#158
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 25 August 2008 - 07:43 AM
Feel free to include a quote the next time you say that and it's unjustified.Those questions have been answered quite a few times already
#159
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 26 August 2008 - 11:16 PM
I don't feel like quoting things that have already been said in this forum. He should read a couple pages back. And it's not unjustified, look back a couple pages.Feel free to include a quote the next time you say that and it's unjustified.
#160
Guest_inDe_eD
Guest_inDe_eD
-
- Guest
Posted 28 August 2008 - 06:07 AM
I see no problem in legalizing it, as long as it is a mutual decision made between two adults. If they know full well what they're getting into, and can cope with the fact that their babies will be a little... strange, who does it hurt?
#161
Guest_youngidealist
Guest_youngidealist
-
- Guest
Posted 28 August 2008 - 10:01 AM
Yes, to be more clear on this subject, I think the laypeople here deserve a little more of an explanation of how this works. See, there are favorable genes and not so favorable genes (genes that help us survive to pass on our genes again, and often keep us away from human suffering while there are also some that don't). On top of this most people also understand that some genes are dominant and some are recessive. Understand that this means that there are 4 types of genes being mentioned here: good dominant, bad dominant, good recessive, and bad recessive. With this in mind, also remember that it takes two recessive genes in order to produce a phenotype of that gene (two of the same recessive genes are required for the traits that they represent to form). Subsequently if a dominant gene and a recessive gene are in the same place, then the phenotype (traits) of the dominant gene will form. As a side note, the dominance of a gene can also be uncertain and some phenotypes can merge, just like how someone with a dark skin parent and a light skin parent often gets a gold mocha like cross between the two. Keep in mind that it's all relative and that there are exceptions. As natural selection progresses, it's more often genes that become extinct than whole species. This is often because the genes produce unfavorable traits like illness or any other state of being that leaves the subject defenseless in it's environment. Consider then what it takes for a dominant gene and a recessive gene to become extinct. First, they have to be unfavorable/bad within the subject's environment. Second, in order for the gene to be eliminated through this process of natural selection, the phenotype (traits) that it represents must be formed. For this reason, dominant genes are put to the test of natural selection more frequently than recessive genes. If a dominant gene is bad for the subject then the subject often dies before passing on its genes, thus extinguishing the bad dominant gene with it. However, a bad recessive gene can remain hidden within a species, only revealing itself when it has the chance of being paired with another exact copy of itself. This is what makes incest wrong. The human species has spread itself throughout every continent and continued to travel and reproduce constantly throughout for millions of years. Because of this and a common tendency to find foreignness to be erotic, the human species is out of practice when it comes to incest. When we reproduce with our close relatives and siblings, a huge number of bad recessive genes that did not get eliminated by natural selection, have the greatest chance to emerge. If we were more used to incest, like wolves are, we would have eliminated those genes through natural selection along with the dominant ones. Of course, morally speaking it's no different than what nature would go through on its own if a small number of people were to repopulate the human race or colonize a new area like somewhere in outer space. It's really more because we are in a state of society that attempts to support it's wounded and disabled despite their inability to contribute, that it becomes immoral to the social cause. The genes themselves will do damage at some point anyway, but having offspring with your close relatives still guarantees genetic disorders in that offspring.Indeed, there are rare genetic disorders that could cause massive problems because they would be passed down so much.
While this point is invalid, I think it's an understandable enough response considering how our culture tends to react to it. This cultural disgust of incest could very well be just as much a naturally selected trait of our culture due to the genetic repercussions that are caused by incest as it can be due to a shear lack of understanding genetics. In other words, we may have developed the cultural trend in order to prevent the negative genetic outcome than we otherwise couldn't explain anyway.O_Oare you kidding?are you telling me you would bang your sister(if you even have one)?would you bang your mom or dad? thats just sick! you should be banned for asking that question! we dont even need an answer! its just wrong! anyone that does it is a freak!POINTS were deducted for this post by KHRSPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#162
Guest_ScaredyLuigi
Guest_ScaredyLuigi
-
- Guest
Posted 28 August 2008 - 04:33 PM
^What he said.And I dunno the full details of this (because I hate biology >_>), but in my Bio class, apparently, reproduction with the same species, but with different DNA causes some immunities and improves the offspring in general...but in single-celled asmexual reproduction, at least, the DNA has the same vulnerabilities, etc, which is more likely in incest than not because your brother/sister were born from the same parents as you, therefore, they share more of your genetic structure than any other possible mate, and therefore, are the closest example to this asmexual reproduction which leads to vulnerability.It's just my hypothesis, but if incest is indeed allowed and too many people partake in it, it may lead to the weakening or even eventual downfall of the human race, which isn't good...
#163
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 28 August 2008 - 05:58 PM
Millions of years? That's odd, I thought we had been around for around 200 000 years. Your point however, is the one I tried to make a few pages back (I tried explaining virtually the same things, but a bit more simplified), and I agree with it entirely.The human species has spread itself throughout every continent and continued to travel and reproduce constantly throughout for millions of years.
It's unlikely that incest will bring about the downfall of the human race. Do you practice incest? Does anyone you know? Incest is fairly rare as far as I know (well, voluntary; not really sure how many get raped).It's just my hypothesis, but if incest is indeed allowed and too many people partake in it, it may lead to the weakening or even eventual downfall of the human race, which isn't good...
#164
Guest_youngidealist
Guest_youngidealist
-
- Guest
Posted 28 August 2008 - 07:14 PM
It's been a while since I took beginning anthropology so I could be wrong. It's also possible that it's only a semantic problem since we might only be considered a particular species for the last 200,000 years but are known to share close common ancestry with other known species who shared the same practice for at least 10 million years to my recollection.Millions of years? That's odd, I thought we had been around for around 200 000 years. Your point however, is the one I tried to make a few pages back (I tried explaining virtually the same things, but a bit more simplified), and I agree with it entirely.
#165
Guest_Deathguard
Guest_Deathguard
-
- Guest
Posted 30 August 2008 - 09:41 PM
I'll reply to it even though it was warned, if that's against some sort of rule, I can't find it;No, I'm not kidding - blind acceptance of a common value doesn't make it reasonable.No, I'm not saying that ( And no, I don't have one. ) What I'm saying is that if the guy loved his sister and vice-versa, and they are BOTH consenting ADULTS ( or above the age of consent, and of similar age), then I see no reason they should be prohibited from expressing as such.No, I wouldn't; As I stated in each of my previous posts, I would limit the legality to only consenting ADULTS - and/or people of similar age. Being banned for asking a question in a debate forum would be rather silly. We do indeed need an answer - that is why this topic exists, so that people can ask questions and receive people's opinions. "It's just wrong" is exactly the point of the post of mine that you responded to; Why is it? Anyone that does it is a freak IN YOUR OPINION - equally, anyone who likes cute animals is a freak in someone's opinion, doesn't make the opinion CORRECT, because no opinion inherently is.I'll note AGAIN;I only support it amongst consenting individuals of SIMILAR AGE and so long as CONTRACEPTION IS USED if there is sex. I'm talking about family loving family, not just sex.:)are you kidding?are you telling me you would bang your sister(if you even have one)?would you bang your mom or dad? thats just sick! you should be banned for asking that question! we dont even need an answer! its just wrong! anyone that does it is a freak!
Yes, but my point was that people need to state "It's wrong" AND a reason it is - not everyone has done so, and my post was aimed at those who have not. I'm well aware that they've been answered quite a few times, the point is "quite a few" isn't "EVERY" time.Those questions have been answered quite a few times already
Edited by Deathguard, 30 August 2008 - 09:49 PM.
#166
Guest_vbaboy5
Guest_vbaboy5
-
- Guest
Posted 31 August 2008 - 03:37 AM
Sorry, but no. I believe it should remain illegal.Many diseases, disorders, and illnesses come from having sex with family members. Why risk your child's health just because you love your sister/brother/cousin/aunt/uncle/mom/dad/what ever?POINTS were deducted for this post by KHRSPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#167
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 31 August 2008 - 08:35 AM
I apologize with the misunderstanding, and I completely agree with you.Yes, but my point was that people need to state "It's wrong" AND a reason it is - not everyone has done so, and my post was aimed at those who have not. I'm well aware that they've been answered quite a few times, the point is "quite a few" isn't "EVERY" time.
#168
Guest_Yukime
Guest_Yukime
-
- Guest
Posted 31 August 2008 - 08:37 AM
Some people have different way to describe incest. Some family let cousins to get married. For me, maybe a distant cousin is ok. For direct family member I don't think so. It's not appropriate and like they say, too many illness hehehe. Genetics speaking...
#169
Guest_Deathguard
Guest_Deathguard
-
- Guest
Posted 31 August 2008 - 12:28 PM
Incest doesn't have to equal pregnancy or even sex. In broad terms it's a feeling of affection and attraction towards a family member ( I.E What a "normal" couple would call love ), not just having sex with them.Sorry, but no. I believe it should remain illegal.Many diseases, disorders, and illnesses come from having sex with family members. Why risk your child's health just because you love your sister/brother/cousin/aunt/uncle/mom/dad/what ever?
#170
brimstone
-
- Active Member
-
- 4 posts
Egg
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 31 August 2008 - 08:58 PM
Incest. Gah, I would prefer if it stayed illegal. It just simply doesn't seem right to me. Plus the side-effects of children aren't a plus. In my personal opinion, I don't really like the thought of two family members having sex, just seems...disgusting.Then again, thats just my opinion.POINTS were deducted for this post by KHRSPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
Edited by brimstone, 31 August 2008 - 09:15 PM.
#171
madel5566
-
- Member
-
- 472 posts
Winged Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 03 September 2008 - 09:27 AM
I say, incest should remain illegal. Though in some countries, 'incest' is legal (for some, it has to see your degree of kinship), but personally I think it is best to avoid it. Though we say that even people that does not have close kinship can have a baby with genetical problems, the risk is higher for people with a very close kinship.Of course, there's still the 'morally wrong' issue, but then, we can't really control our feelings, though it might cause very complicated relationships within the family.
Edited by madel5566, 03 September 2008 - 09:27 AM.
Every end is a beginning...cherish every moment
ava credits to killbarbie@lj~
ava credits to killbarbie@lj~
#172
Guest_Littlecricket
Guest_Littlecricket
-
- Guest
Posted 03 September 2008 - 07:31 PM
Incest should stay illegal. For lots of reasons... Its wrong and like everyone else says if you have babys in a incest relationship the children can have problems...My family ist.. twisted some... two members of my family got marryed and had a kid and the kid ist retarded some...The bible even says it ist wrong...For all these reasons I believe it should stay illegal... maybe my family will get help some day...
#173
Guest_BeeBee!
Guest_BeeBee!
-
- Guest
Posted 07 September 2008 - 03:45 PM
I prefer incest to be illegal.I cannot imagine having a relationship with my father of brother[not that I have one].Incest can be cute or nice to read in manga[or books?]But in real life..... Uhh.. I think a HUGE NO!Besides, when you have s** with your father or a close family member and you made a child, the probability of having an abnormal baby is high. I think its because of the similar genes or something like that.POINTS were deducted for this post by KHRSPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#174
Guest_behindthenine
Guest_behindthenine
-
- Guest
Posted 09 September 2008 - 04:07 AM
i thought it was easier for the makers of the kid to get a desease, not for the kid concieved to have birth defects.POINTS were deducted for this post by KHRSPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.I prefer incest to be illegal.I cannot imagine having a relationship with my father of brother[not that I have one].Incest can be cute or nice to read in manga[or books?]But in real life..... Uhh.. I think a HUGE NO!Besides, when you have s** with your father or a close family member and you made a child, the probability of having an abnormal baby is high. I think its because of the similar genes or something like that.POINTS were deducted for this post by KHRSPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#175
Guest_Deathguard
Guest_Deathguard
-
- Guest
Posted 09 September 2008 - 09:01 PM
The question isn't if YOU would or should do it, yourself. It's a matter of whether, in broad terms, it should be allowed. You can support something without doing it yourself, and you can also do something you don't believe should be permitted - "Do as I say, not as I do."
