Incest Ethics

XDaDePsak · Mar 31, 2002

In the completely unlikely scenario that a brother and sister both had perfect phenotypes (no bad recessive genes), should they be allowed to have sex?

Incest is only bad because it largely causes deformities, correct? If two people have perfect genes, then there will be no chance of deformity. So should it be allowed?

Or do you think it's jsut bad to have sex with family?

Personally, I think it should be allowed, it's all about ethics when the main problem is solved (which is the case with almost everything, like weed)

DukieMan1223 · Mar 31, 2002

Sorry!

[ March 31, 2002, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: DukieMan1223 ]

XDaDePsak · Mar 31, 2002

I'm seriously gonna ban you if you make another post like that in the debate room. you have to EXPLAIN WHY you think something.

DukieMan1223 · Mar 31, 2002

Incest is just wrong. 2 family members just shouldn't do it. And if you're a Christian it says in the bible you shouldn't. I'm sorry, I hit it on accident!!!

[ March 31, 2002, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: DukieMan1223 ]

Gamer4Fire · Mar 31, 2002

Ethically, it is questionable depending on the society. Technically, with your precondition of no gentetic malignancy, there should be no problem with a brother sister, mother son, etc having sex.

XDaDePsak · Mar 31, 2002

Well, yeah, g4f that's about all that can be said on this subject. btw, where in the bible does it say incest is bad? as i recall, adam and eve's children must have had to had sex with eachother...

Bumble Bee Tuna · Apr 1, 2002

Well, I see nothing wrong with it...This is another one of those "doesn't affect anyone else, so do whatever the **** you please" issues. If they want to have sex, more power to 'em. I don't give a flying fig.

-B

Samus_2021 · Apr 1, 2002

On Jerry Springer, there was a family where the brother and sister were having sex, and are expecting a baby. Now I'm not saying that this family was just acting up this situation, but what I am saying is that this stuff really happens.

Take yourself for example (just as an example, and I don't mean anything by it). Would you have sex with your own brother/sister or mother/father? For those of you who had the slightest disgust by the thought, then obviously you are not into incestral relationships.

IMO I think incest is wrong. Sure there is the love within a family, but I wouldn't have anything physical with any of my family members.

Although the royal families of Ancient Egypt had to have incestral sex in order to keep the family heir's blood tainted by "outsiders". In their beliefs, it wasn't a bad thing.

It boils down to personal/ethical beliefs. If so and so choose to have an incestral relationship, so be it. It's not up to us.

[ April 01, 2002, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Samus_2021 ]

PimpLuigi · Apr 1, 2002

hmm, what's the question here? Ah ethically right? h3ll no, that's ****ing sick yo. Then again it depends on your ethics. Legally- (did you even mention that?) probably still no, youre speaking of a theoretical situation- "if" they both had perfect genes. Seeing as how it's a behind closed doors thing similar to homosexuality you'd think it'd be okay, but since it's contigent on them having an ideal situation which they wouldn't be able to tell w/ out getting tested or some such i say no to that as well. Can you imagine incest clinics? You'd have to go to a certain place to see if youre eligible to sleep w/ your sister. And seeing as how that's not gonna happen- i say it's wrong ethically, (according to my ethics anyway) and too inconvenient and costly to service the small number of freaks to whom it applies. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

~Pimp

Gilgamesh · Apr 1, 2002

hum... if there's no genetic problem i say it's ok. But society doesn't seem to like it, oh well. i agree with gamer4fire, and i think this debate won't last long.

[ April 01, 2002, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Gilgamesh ]

XDaDePsak · Apr 1, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PimpLuigi:
 i say it's wrong ethically, (according to my ethics anyway) and too inconvenient and costly to service the small number of freaks to whom it applies. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
<hr /></blockquote>LOL, werd.

Limey · Apr 1, 2002

He||, animals do it, so why shouldn't we?
It depends on whether you want to... god that sounded stupid.
If two people seriously want to, then they can. It don't bother me, just so long as they don't do it in my bed. I'm sure it's illegal, but what ain't today? But the webbbed toes part is way too freaky for me, with incest babies, that's a big NO. The babies aunty, would be it's mother. Uhhhgg.
Even worse with mother/son, father/daughter babies. The babies grandfather/mother would be it's father/mother, or it's sister/brother would be parents...

I don't want to talk no more... <img border="0" alt="[Freak]" title="" src="graemlins/freak.gif" />

Ender_Wiggen · Apr 1, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Xdadepsak
Where in the bible does it say incest is bad? <hr /></blockquote>There are several instances in the bible where people have incest for God. One is where two daughters have incest with their father. They get him drunk and have sex with him. I'll edit the post when I get the exact exerpt.

[ April 01, 2002, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Peter_Wiggen ]

PorCorpWis · Apr 2, 2002

As I've said before, anything any number of people wish to do, as long as they are emotionally capable to decide that they do indeed wish to do it, is alright. It's biggoted and selfish of anyone to say otherwise. If the two would likley wind up having a deformed baby, use protection. If not, have a baby. I'm sure that baby won't mind existing.

PimpLuigi · Apr 2, 2002

no protection is a hundred percent, and it's not fair to the mutant kid that's going to be an outKast growing up. now i'd be all for gay incestral relationships <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

XDaDePsak · Apr 2, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PimpLuigi:
no protection is a hundred percent, and it's not fair to the mutant kid that's going to be an outKast growing up. now i'd be all for gay incestral relationships <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Ok, I guess the question i was trying to ask was this:
If the people used protection and were on the pill would it be okay?

deltaorange_samus · Apr 2, 2002

Well, here is the thing, even if everybody was ok with family faukers, and there were no genetic drawbacks, who would even be attracted to anybody else in their family? I don't look at my sister and go hmm, you fine. Nobody in their right mind should. Not even cousins either. <img border="0" alt="[Laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" />

X, I don't get what you mean by "allowed to have sex." Belive me, if they want to, nobody is going to stop them. Why else would Kentucky have such a high population? Because **** (Or incest) happens.

Oh, and if the sex was just for fun, and they were protected, it would still be wrong...'cause hey! You just did your sister! NaStY!

Matt · Apr 2, 2002

I figured that that's what you meant. Afterall, who would want to start a family with their own family? Then again, who would want to have sex with their own family members in the first place? Save for the rednecks and people who are already braindead, I don't see how the attraction could exist.

Ethically? This action is very wrong.

XDaDePsak · Apr 2, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by deltaorange_samus:
X, I don't get what you mean by "allowed to have sex<hr /></blockquote>What I mean by that, is you can get arrested for it. Need more explaination?

PorCorpWis · Apr 2, 2002

This is pathetic. The inhabitants of this thread are too close-minded to see through social norms into the actual right-and-wrong of it.

DrumUltimA · Apr 2, 2002

Ok, here's how I see it.

If they want to have sex, they might as well. I don't see anything wrong with it, especially if they love eachother in that way. I mean, sure, most people see it as "Eww, that's disgusting", but that's not necessarly how they see it. The only thing I have against this is if it's forced by a sex-crazed lunatic, but that brings us into ****, and that's another story.

Gamer4Fire · Apr 2, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PorCorpWis:
This is pathetic. The inhabitants of this thread are too close-minded to see through social norms into the actual right-and-wrong of it.<hr /></blockquote>A-HEM!

Craftstar · Apr 2, 2002

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Do You guys honestly wanna **** yor sisters? 'Nuff said, honestly

</pre><hr /></blockquote>

SLaKKiCHu · Apr 3, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PorCorpWis:
This is pathetic. The inhabitants of this thread are too close-minded to see through social norms into the actual right-and-wrong of it.<hr /></blockquote>Boy, you like using the word 'pathetic' and 'close-minded' a lot, don't you?

You're calling people closed-minded because they don't agree with having sex with siblings? Only because they agree with something that society has to say?

Do you say the same things in terms of murder? How about ****? Society doesn't accept those things, either, yet is someone opposed to **** closed-minded?

In general, anti-incest is a positive thing as it eliminates an activity who'se progeny will have increased chances of mental ***********. Willfully increasing the chances of something like that in a child is ethically wrong.

****ing around with your sister.. well. It's not my cup of tea, but there's not much that can be done to stop it. It is a free country.

PorCorpWis · Apr 3, 2002

Slakk, it happens to be illegal, so in that respect this is not a free country.

There are forms of birth control that when used together and properly make it virtually impossible to get pregnant. With that aspect of it removed, there is absolutly nothing wrong with having sex with family members as long as it's concentual. It doesn't hurt anyone, and it obviously pleases the people involved if they wish to do so.

PimpLuigi · Apr 3, 2002

no birth control is a 100% alot of them may seem virtually impossible until you became that statistic 1-3%.

White Rob · Apr 3, 2002

Very interesting topic...I usually side with the whole 'you have a right to do whatever you want' but I actually make an exception for incest. Why? Well I'll tell you why.

Outside of the reasons already discussed (genetic defects, social taboo, etc.) I'll try to put a spin on some of this.

First off, when two members of the human race don't propogate with outside members, genetic diversity goes down. I know this is flowing into another controversial subject here (genetics and evolution), but when you have a more diverse gene pool, a society is bound to gain more out of it than a limited one. More combinations of genes become possible and pose the potential for greater attributes to be developed. Its not the fact that 'freak babies' are born out of incest, but rather the world is losing out on the potential for two people to have a baby that might have the potential to be a stronger hybrid of genetics. Also, hybrid girls are SOOO hot. Especially Asian/White hybrids. ^_^ hehehe...but that's just my opinion.

Also, I'm pretty sure incest mainly occurs nowadays due to ****. It is usually non-consentual and I think this is one of the major reasons that it is illegal in the US. But then again, you could always argue against this by saying if it were allowed...perhaps it wouldn't be so taboo'ed and secretive, therefore leading to fewer incest *****. Also I could be talking out of my *** here and just making this up, but it makes sense to me, and I coulda sworn I've read it somewhere.

Nonetheless, I'm very impressed with the open-mindedness of the people at this forum. Not too much of this BS about 'oh its just wrong!' or 'cuz the Bible said so!' crap. Keep it comin'.

PorCorpWis · Apr 3, 2002

No, actually, most incest relationships are not ****. There a quite a lot of them that are concentual. This is not something that the media reports through, so most people are left to believe otherwise. If they aren't going to have a baby, then there's no way that genetic diversity matters. It's not a 1-3% chance of bith control failing, Pimp. If it's used correctly, the pill itself has over a 99.x% success rate, and condoms have well over 80% sucess rate... more like 95%+ if you use a latex one with spermicides. Multiply those two and it's a very statistically insignificant chance of a pregnancy happening. One could say that sex shouldn't be allowed outside marriage because there's always the chance that they'll get pregnant, and being raised by a single parent is not as good for the child, but that's stupid. You could say that all sex should be banned because some of it is ****, like the last poster said, but that's even more moronic.It's when people aren't responsible enough to actually use birth control correctly that accidental pregnancies happen, and one cannot assume that every incestual relationship is automatically non-concentual. I thought this was supposed to be a free country, not one opressed by social norms.

Bumble Bee Tuna · Apr 3, 2002

Just wondering, what does it matter if birth control works or not? First, the question was hypothetical and assumed perfect phenotypes. But more importantly, throwing that assumption aside, on the off chance that your condom breaks, there's the morning after pill. And if the condom, birth control pill, and morning after pill all don't work, you can go get an abortion. So what's the big deal? It doesn't matter.

-B

PorCorpWis · Apr 3, 2002

Indeed Bumble Bee. That's my point. There's no reason to say incestual relationships are inherently bad after all of that.

androza · Apr 3, 2002

If a brother and sister who were sterile had sex, would it be wrong?

I would not look down upon someone for it, but I wouldn't partake in such a thing. I don't think that the government should have a say in people sex lives. Sort of like its absurd that Massachusetts recently upheld an anti-sodomy law.

Luigitoilet · Apr 4, 2002

I say it's religion, ethics, etc that would matter. But, being a Christian, I still find many things wrong with the Bible, why wouldn't God just make more people out of Adam and Eve if incest was wrong? Of course, the whole Adam and Eve thing is faulty. If God made only two people, they were only one or two races (most pictures show them as white.). So unless God made more people, which he didn't, how did Africans, Asians, Puerto Ricans, etc etc, appear? I say if you find someone in your family that attractive and, 'incestial', then slap on a condom, pop a pill, or whatever and get started. It's not my bag though... I guess for some people, having sex with a brother/sister/whatever makes them more aroused, I guess it could in some sick, weird way. As Joe Dirt says when he was screwing the chick he thought was his sister, "You're my sister! You're my sister!"

Misto-Roboto · Apr 4, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by deltaorange_samus:
Well, here is the thing, even if everybody was ok with family faukers, and there were no genetic drawbacks, who would even be attracted to anybody else in their family? I don't look at my sister and go hmm, you fine. Nobody in their right mind should. Not even cousins either. <img border="0" alt="[Laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" />

Actually by at least the 7th generation of cousins, they are seperated that it is actually safe to do so if the need actually arise.

X, I don't get what you mean by "allowed to have sex." Belive me, if they want to, nobody is going to stop them. Why else would Kentucky have such a high population? Because **** (Or incest) happens.

Oh, and if the sex was just for fun, and they were protected, it would still be wrong...'cause hey! You just did your sister! NaStY!<hr /></blockquote>I honestly think the idea makes me sick. I just can't see my sisters that way.

Kirbitsu · Apr 4, 2002

You should of had a better understanding of Biology before making this post. Even if two cousins or siblings had no bad recessive genes, the problems dont stop there. The problems arise because for some reason children of incest tend to have extra of certain types of chromosomes since the DNA of the relatives is so similar. So what tends to happen is while you should only have say two #21 chromosomes, you have three. While this does not seem all that bad it is actually what causes down syndrome. Thats why most incest babies are mentally retarted. There are even worse things that happen with extra chromosome i. e. extra fingers and toes (this is not a joke either, this is what happens when you have an extra number 22 chromosome). Thats why its illegal, plus fornicating with your sister is just plain nasty.

XDaDePsak · Apr 4, 2002

Originally posted by Ephemeral Kirbitsu:

"You should of had a better understanding of Biology before making this post."

You should have had a better understanding of English grammar before making this post. "should of" is incorrect <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .

"Even if two cousins or siblings had no bad recessive genes, the problems dont stop there. The problems arise because for some reason children of incest tend to have extra of certain types of chromosomes since the DNA of the relatives is so similar. So what tends to happen is while you should only have say two #21 chromosomes, you have three. While this does not seem all that bad it is actually what causes down syndrome. Thats why most incest babies are mentally retarted."

You blatantly fail to understand the concept of this topic as a whole because your ignorant semantics are derailing the objective. The question was purely hypothetical and was just elaboration on incest being illegal for no reason but stupid taboos, even with the main problem (deformed children) out of the way. Basically, I was trying to get you 'tards to exclude any references to pregnancy, for reasons that Bee so thoughtfully explained. This topic is to debate why it is illegal for two people, non-minors, to have sex. Casual sex at that. This directly relates to homosexuality.

"Thats why its illegal, plus fornicating with your sister is just plain nasty."

Delivering a child, taking a shit, performing surgery, and autopsies are also nasty. Is that any good reason to make those illegal?

Slakkichu:
"Do you say the same things in terms of murder? How about ****? Society doesn't accept those things, either, yet is someone opposed to **** closed-minded?"

Bad attack. Murder and **** are not consentual, the incest being discussed is. But

[ April 04, 2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: XDaDePsak ]

Gamer4Fire · Apr 4, 2002

To think, back in the day (BC), all these villages of a few dozen were all related to each other by blood, and for thousands of years they kept marrying and having children with their cousins, without much adverse affect. Most small villages in England, the American natives, the Asian nomads. They all married their cousins for hundreds and thousands of years. The strong survived and the weak parished. The genetic strength merely increased with each generation and became more "pure." Any child with genetic abnormality died, and the ones without lived, and they had children with strong genetic material... or they died.

I wonder how this fits into this argument?

EDIT: News article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/03/health/03CND-COUS.html" target="_blank">A study has found that marrying even your first cousin carries an acceptable level of genetic risk, in fact much less risk than many other groups who are permitted to marry.</a>

[ April 04, 2002, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Gamer4Fire ]

Incest Ethics

BRoomer

Smash Lord

BRoomer

Smash Lord

PyroGamer

BRoomer

Dolphin-Safe

Smash Journeyman

Agent Smith

BRoomer

BRoomer

Smash Fan

Smash Apprentice

Smash Ace

Agent Smith

BRoomer

Naranja Nirvana

Banned via Administration

BRoomer

Smash Ace

Smash Journeyman

PyroGamer

Prank Monkey

Mercury, Solace

Smash Ace

Agent Smith

Smash Apprentice

Smash Ace

Dolphin-Safe

Smash Ace

Smash Journeyman

shattering perfection

BRoomer

Smash Apprentice

BRoomer

PyroGamer

Information

Network