Incest Debate

first post on page 4 ya fucking cactus

 

4 pages.

 

Indeed. Which is why we have an instinctive 'yuck' reaction to incest. But, again, in modern times, do we have sex / marry / love / whatever purely to reproduce and guarantee the survival of our species? Or do we do it out of love? Incest isn't reproducing per se.

Indeed. But these genetical diseases also come from genetically handicapped people - who are allowed to reproduce. And if I were to say they shouldn't be allowed to, I'd bet quite some would be upset with me. Of course, they can't help it; they didn't choose to be genetically handicapped. But a sister who loves her brother also didn't choose for that, she, too, cannot help it but love him. Or is love and orientation a choice?

That also goes for the 'so many other fishes in the sea' arguement. It was made against homosexuals too; why must they love people of their own gender? There are so many of the opposite gender, let them love someone else. But, obviously, they didn't choose to be homosexual. They just are. They didn't choose to love this certain someone. They just do.

If you would say a +3% or +4% or whatever the average is, of an increased chance of birth deffects is incredibly dangerous, then sure, having reproductive sex is dangerous. Incest, in and of itself, is not.

 

Have you seen my profile pic?

 

I wish people were this liberal about weed.

 

But I acknowledged that argument and provided counterarguments. I also said that I agree that producing children through incest is immoral.


EDIT: removed last part of post, was pointless.

 

You keep going off topic Speed. This is not a discussion about handicapped people, I get it that some of your argument fits into it but in the end it is a different topic entirely. And maybe some people here equally don't like handicapped people reproducing AND incest, you don't know because its not relevant.

I do personally think, fuck, know that you can 'stop' loving a person. Maybe you will always remember that person but yes changing love interest is possible, and not actually that hard. You argument about homosexual people is controversial, and again of little relevance because they like a certain TYPE of people (same gender). Is a girl thats in love with her brother only able to love/be attracted to people she's related to? Unlikely, she just likes that certain person, there are ways to change it. I don't entirely mind if some siblings out there are in love openly but I am against them bringing children into the world and harming them for life. (Possibly not physiologically but definitely psychologically). Anyway thats all from me as the topic is milked, just countering a few arguments you made that I think are out of place.

 

You can't compare handicapped people, the chance of 2 handicapped people having the exact same faulty gene is tiny since they will be genetically different to each other to the point where it's not different than a non handicapped couple. Your argument about normal sex being dangerous also has no bearing on this argument because the whole argument of incest being bad is because it drastically increases the risk to the child, while there is even a risk in a "normal" couple the increased risk for sibling couples is completely unacceptable for no benefit what so ever, where not talking about 2 people doing a risky thing and it only effecting them, we're talking about 2 people doing a risky thing which doesn't effect them, it effects their completely innocent child who had no say in their decision.

 

There's a lot I agree with in here. It's much easier to discuss issues like this when people make such posts.


I would just say that just because it is easily possible to move on to someone else for most people, doesn't mean that anyone should feel that they are obliged to.

 

No, definitely not what I was implying, just saying its much easier than for homosexual people to go straight suddenly, since Speed compared the two and said they were similar and it puffled my jiggies

 

Not even twins?

 

Well I actually agree with you here Kazza. I wouldn't be opposed to banning both handicapped people and those in an incestuous relation from having (well, creating, not adopting) children - I consider it to be immortal - although I doubt that'd go over well. I just dislike the double standard.

Can you just stop loving a person? Well, I guess, at the cost of pain and such... But you can also pretend you're not homosexual and live a probably unhappy heterosexual life. Changing your whole orientation versus someone whom you love, well, both seem painful, unhappy, and untrue to me. Artificially changing your orientation is impossible. But then again, you cannot just wake up one day and decide 'nope, I do not love him or her'. However, naturally, most people love multiple people, while their orientation is pretty much set in stone after some point, so I guess there's some truth to what you're saying. Neither should be wanted though, in my opinion.

Again, I can find myself with the 'prevent them from making children', so long as the same is true for others, such as genetically handicapped people.

I didn't make an arguement about normal sex, I said that incestuous pregnancy has a +3% or +4% or +whatever% chance of resulting in handicapped people (compared to 'normal' pregnancy). But can we seperate incest from reproducing? Because I have nothing against incest, but I agree with you on reproducing (sorry if that wasn't clear).

And I'm tired, so sorry if this makes little sense.

 

Are we genuinely discussing the pro's and con's of incest? I mean, really guys? That shit is illegal for a very good reason.

 

Thanks for the deep, detailed argument you've given us. Slavery was once legal, you know? Laws aren't perfect.

 

I find the usage of the term "genetically handicapped" to be extremely offensive.

On the subject of incest, no. Just no. If some people do have such a relationship and they are from the same family and have decided to have sex, then they better use protection and it better be consensual.
If a child is born from a sexual act of incest because protection was used but it failed, then that's something that can't be helped with, other than the carrying side having an abortion. But if no protection was used at all? No. Just. No.

In any case, it's wrong. And it should not be looked upon as something that could become acceptable. If incest is accepted in any shape or form, in any law for example, then that's a gigantic loophole for say, pedophiles that have a victim from inside their family. "She is my sisters daughter so this is incest, not pedophilia, and incest is allowed by the state/country/county law so you can't do shit".

 

Just think of the possibilities, what should we legalise next?!

 

Incest.

 

That's bullshit. Pedophilia would still be illegal; legalising incest wouldn't change that at all.


Your argument is like saying that when homosexuality was legalised people started arguing "it's gay sex not pedophilia so you can't do shit"