Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

should incest be legal?

should incest be legal?


  • Total voters
    107
I never said homosexuality and incest were the same exact issue. I said the crux of the issue was the same: the right/freedom to love who you want to love (within reason). I don't care whether or not you find it to be icky. I was reiterating my point that personal preference should not come into the discussion, as it does so often. I was heading off any response of "it's wrong", should you decide to respond that way.

Inbreeding, I get it. However, should the chance of deformity or genetic defects be cause to not allow two people to have a child? As I mentioned before, this does goes off into an entirely different topic of discussion. If you say it shouldn't be allowed in this case, then should it be illegal (is it already?) for someone with horrible genetic diseases in their line to have a child? Should an autistic (some sources suggest there's some genetic link) man/woman be allowed to have a child? Should anyone with any kind of serious genetic defect be allowed to have a child? If you feel those people should not be able to have children, then I guess there isn't much more to be said on the issue.

However, it doesn't defeat my stance. Two people having sex does not automatically equal conception. What if the incest was gay? Should gay couples of the same blood be punished for issues that only affect straight couples of the same blood?
 
Mitsu said:
I never said homosexuality and incest were the same exact issue. I said the crux of the issue was the same: the right/freedom to love who you want to love (within reason). I don't care whether or not you find it to be icky. I was reiterating my point that personal preference should not come into the discussion, as it does so often. I was heading off any response of "it's wrong", should you decide to respond that way.

Inbreeding, I get it. However, should the chance of deformity or genetic defects be cause to not allow two people to have a child? As I mentioned before, this does goes off into an entirely different topic of discussion. If you say it shouldn't be allowed in this case, then should it be illegal (is it already?) for someone with horrible genetic diseases in their line to have a child? Should an autistic (some sources suggest there's some genetic link) man/woman be allowed to have a child? Should anyone with any kind of serious genetic defect be allowed to have a child? If you feel those people should not be able to have children, then I guess there isn't much more to be said on the issue.

However, it doesn't defeat my stance. Two people having sex does not automatically equal conception. What if the incest was gay? Should gay couples of the same blood be punished for issues that only affect straight couples of the same blood?

I er... Conceded to allowing consensual couples the right to commit incestuous acts so long as they understood the risks... I believe we are having a... Communication error?

As for the no children issue, that is because it's unfair to the children themselves to subject them to much greater chances of birth defects of both physical and mental varieties. It has nothing to do with the parents themselves. If they want a child, there are plenty of adoption homes full of children that could use good parents.
 
TheMasquerade said:
Mitsu said:
I never said homosexuality and incest were the same exact issue. I said the crux of the issue was the same: the right/freedom to love who you want to love (within reason). I don't care whether or not you find it to be icky. I was reiterating my point that personal preference should not come into the discussion, as it does so often. I was heading off any response of "it's wrong", should you decide to respond that way.

Inbreeding, I get it. However, should the chance of deformity or genetic defects be cause to not allow two people to have a child? As I mentioned before, this does goes off into an entirely different topic of discussion. If you say it shouldn't be allowed in this case, then should it be illegal (is it already?) for someone with horrible genetic diseases in their line to have a child? Should an autistic (some sources suggest there's some genetic link) man/woman be allowed to have a child? Should anyone with any kind of serious genetic defect be allowed to have a child? If you feel those people should not be able to have children, then I guess there isn't much more to be said on the issue.

However, it doesn't defeat my stance. Two people having sex does not automatically equal conception. What if the incest was gay? Should gay couples of the same blood be punished for issues that only affect straight couples of the same blood?

I er... Conceded to allowing consensual couples the right to commit incestuous acts so long as they understood the risks... I believe we are having a... Communication error?

As for the no children issue, that is because it's unfair to the children themselves to subject them to much greater chances of birth defects of both physical and mental varieties. It has nothing to do with the parents themselves. If they want a child, there are plenty of adoption homes full of children that could use good parents.

I was continuing the discussion from a different angle, and adding a point of discussion for anyone else that would like to speak up. I don't make it clear, but I'm not just debating/arguing/talking with you, but anyone that reads this post. This is an open discussion.

I won't argue the children issue anymore, because this isn't the point of the thread. I do find it to be something I'm not entirely sure of myself, and I find myself agreeing with you to some degree.

At any rate you conceded to the point I was making, so I'm not so sure if there's anything more for us to say to each other.
 
I know this has already been said, but I want it to be emphasized because I feel people are greatly ignorant to this topic/debate.

Paedophilia and incest should never be coined together. The fact that so many people on this thread have responded by stating that incest is damaging to "children" boggles my mind. Having sex with a child is wrong, no matter WHAT THE CONTEXT. This is an entirely different issue.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.
 
Temptationist said:
I know this has already been said, but I want it to be emphasized because I feel people are greatly ignorant to this topic/debate.

Paedophilia and incest should never be coined together. The fact that so many people on this thread have responded by stating that incest is damaging to "children" boggles my mind. Having sex with a child is wrong, no matter WHAT THE CONTEXT. This is an entirely different issue.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

It's not about pedophilia. It's about something that in some cases (like a parent and child) starts when one of the individuals is a child. Like in my last post in this thread. In a case where it's a person who raised the other, I feel it is unhealthy and unfair for the child (whether they're a child or not). It's selfish for someone to raise someone, morph them into the person you want them to be and then be like "I want to get with that." That's like creating their own lover.
 
Ms_Muffintops said:
Temptationist said:
I know this has already been said, but I want it to be emphasized because I feel people are greatly ignorant to this topic/debate.

Paedophilia and incest should never be coined together. The fact that so many people on this thread have responded by stating that incest is damaging to "children" boggles my mind. Having sex with a child is wrong, no matter WHAT THE CONTEXT. This is an entirely different issue.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

It's not about pedophilia. It's about something that in some cases (like a parent and child) starts when one of the individuals is a child. Like in my last post in this thread. In a case where it's a person who raised the other, I feel it is unhealthy and unfair for the child (whether they're a child or not). It's selfish for someone to raise someone, morph them into the person you want them to be and then be like "I want to get with that." That's like creating their own lover.

But how can you say that's actually what happened?
Incest doesn't necessarily start when the daughter or son is a child.
Also, your answer is only for parent x child, and I understand that was the intention.
But what about siblings? Or cousins? Or aunt/uncle x niece/nephew?
Is there a raising process there?

I also highly doubt that most cases are parents/ a parent who deliberately decides to raise the child into their own lover.

Uhm - I don't think so.
I mean, possibly, but to limit all of incest to a notion like that is absurd.

Regardless, everything is irrelevant because incest can start after / into adulthood. Not necessarily when someone is underaged.

ALSO - incest is so much more psychologically complex than "morph[ing] them into the person you want them to be". That's quite a close-minded view on incest.
 
incestlover said:
here is my opinion: first of all i see incestuous relations as no different than gays and lesbians or interracial. they have long been taboo and critisized and said it was wrong and discusting. but the worlds view on those are changing. if 2 people are in love then it is their decision to be in a relationship together and should be free to live their life as they choose, not how the rest of the world chooses.

secondly, if you are interested, you should do some research on the scientific facts about 2 relatives giving birth. you would be surprised to know that 2 people with the same background (2 white people or 2 black people etc) have a slightly higher % of giving birth to a baby with birth defects. while first cousins only have an extra like 3 or 3.5% higher chance of having a baby with birth defects. the lowest risk is people who are not related by blood and dont have the same background (1 white and 1 black or example).

the only reason why some people see it as gross or wrong, is only because thats what we have been led to believe and forced in fact to believe. there is plenty of countries in the world where no laws prohibiting incest in any form. while some others do prohibit laws against close relatives such as mother/father with their daughter/son etc but allow cousins. some countries that will even allow first cousins to get married.

so question is, if incest is so bad and wrong and gross and my most favorite "unnatural" then why is there other countries who allow it?
"unnatural" is my favorite because it was natural in fact in the beginning. how do you think 2 people populated an entire race? 2 people gave birth to kids and those kids in turn had to further procreation through incest. for a long time incest was not only popular it was more of a given. but one reason they put laws against incest was so people would have to mingle outside their family and be more sociable. another reason was to try and breed more better offspring.
Nothing personal, but this is somewhat wrong. While it IS true that incest for a single generation may not cause issues, look up the greek Emperor Nero, that is what prolonged Incest can do. That is one factor in the law. The other is if it wasn't "illegal" then you would have people who abuse it.

I actually did research into this when I ended up accidentally dating a cousin. My view is, if you don't do anything "Creepy" then go for it.

As for the whole "Why America has Incest laws where no one else does", this sort of pushes the boundaries of a good argument. In africa a woman can be stoned to death for speaking out against her husband. Also in England, they are relatively inbred ((At least those in power)) I guarantee you if you look at any given family tree, that has long enough branches, someone will be inbred. Keep in mind, they didn't have geneticists back when they make the laws, they didn't realize how long it took for genetic damage to occur. As for America's laws about it, why does America have laws against gays and lesses, did have interracial laws, and my actual city ordinance says "No person may wear a leash or collar in public". Because America was found on religious freedom, which means fuck us sinners, and people who don't have puritanical values.

Keep in mind as late as the 1910's a girl that was 14 was expected to be married and having kids. Also miscarriages and such were insanely common.

I always felt the laws were made more for practicality similar to girls must "Remain a virgin until Marriage". Because when you basically sold off your daughter and her doury, you got significantly more for a virgin And considering views it probably wasn't uncommon for siblings or even parents to rape their children, thus the laws were put into effect. Although the last part is mostly conjecture.
 
uhh lets see.

I think that if they're related, sharing at least 30% of their DNA (direct family and cousins) they should be allowed to do what they want, but shouldn't be allowed to conceive, they can use surrogates but a brother cannot impregnate his sister.

if they are like, distant quarter-cousins or something who really share barely any DNA, then fine, go for it.
 
incestlover said:
who thinks that incest should be legal?

Uh... never really put any thought into it. I would say maybe, provided there were limititations. Particularly in regards to consent, breeding, and... well, primarily consent. I believe there's been an issue with that.

Alright, I don't know. I can't give a straight answer. All I can say is that it leads to the same question bestiality does: if it's not hurting anybody (or, indeed, anything), should we let it be?[/i]
 
[font =Times New Roman]
•The law does allow very limited inter-related marriages•​


In the United States, there are laws regulating a certain amount of allowed inter-related marriages. However, this has been reduced greatly in the past several years. Indeed, until 1997, in Texas, first cousins were allowed to marry. However, since that time, the laws have changed and the limitations have been strengthened.

The way the law determines whether a person is “too closely related” for marriage is determined by a system known as “degrees of consanguinity and affinity”. Affinity is relational status as determined by law. I.e., brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, etc. Consanguinity, on the other hand, is determined by actual blood ties, and therefore, that's what I'll focus on here.

To understand the limitations of the newer laws, it is important to chart out exactly what the degrees of Consanguinity are. The first degree of consanguinity is: (1) child; or, (2) parent. Second degree consanguinity is: (1) grandchild; (2) sister; (3) brother; or, (4) grandparent. Third degree consanguinity is: (1)great-grandchild; (2) niece; (3) nephew; (4) uncle; (5) aunt; or, (6) great-grandparent. Fourth degree consanguinity is: (1) great-great-grandchild; (2) grandniece; (3) grandnephew; (4) first cousin; (5) great-aunt; (6) great-uncle; or, (7) great-great-grandparent.

In the past, fourth degree consanguinity marriages were allowed, albeit limited to first cousins. However, with the recent amendments to the law, (specifically TX Family Code § 6.201,) the new requirements are set out as:

A marriage is void if one party to the marriage is related to the other as: (1) an ancestor or descendant, by blood or adoption; (2) a brother or sister, of the whole or half blood or by adoption; (3) a parent's brother or sister, of the whole or half blood or by adoption; or, (4) a son or daughter of a brother or sister, of the whole or half blood or by adoption.

In other words, we can see that even relatives by adoption are prohibited from marrying each other now. The thinking behind this is, that allowing any such types of relationships weakens the overarching unity of a family, and opens the door for relationships which will result in birth defects, or claims of legitimacy by full blooded or half blooded relations. In a sense of the full blooded relations, I can see the logic of not allowing the marriage. The risk of birth defects and the increase of familial diseases is significant. After all, the inter-relatedness of the royal families of Europe led to their entire lines being infected with the horrific bleeding disorder of hemophilia.

These sorts of diseases carry a considerable risk to the entire population who might wed into and procreate with the carriers of the disease. Incestuous relationships help to foster such diseases, and that can be truly problematic. I suppose if these risks weren't associated with it, then I wouldn't have a problem with such relationships. That being said, they are, and therefore it is necessary to prohibit them to an extent.

The way that the above mentioned Texas Family Code section is worded, any person who is related by the Fifth degree of consanguinity or beyond (i.e., third cousins and beyond), are not prohibited from marrying one another. Will this change in the future? Probably, as the laws are constantly changing. Yet, it is important to note, that at least, as things stand today, there are certain inter-related marriages that are allowed.
 
While in reality I won't find myself ever going into this kind of relationship. In roleplay and fantasies i do. However my opinion on this is to just take religion out of this, leave the people who choose to do so alone. If both parties consent to it and truely love each other in that sense then leave them be. and as far as a childs consenting age goes, that is blurred with the way society works. If a child can choose to rebel against the rules whether by the law or at home then they are the proper age to consent to whatever it is they want. (somewhere between 16 and onwards.) people need to stop looking at religion, the science that most people put in and take a look at society. We are at an age and generation now where most kids if not raised by proper parents who prefer obedient perfect behaving children are usually rebellious and fight the system. with age restrictions on smoking and drinking, most kids in my high school and even my own siblings decided to drink and smoke before being near the legal age to do so. We aren't in a age where science and/or religion should control the laws alone. a look into society and such should come into play as well.

While yes there are physical and mental defects that CAN come far enough down the line with inbreeding...But if both parties understand this and still go ahead and breed, then let them be and suffer the pain and suffering of their mistakes and make it where any kind of problems that would come will be denied help unless paid out of their own pockets.(now given that isn't quite fair to the child that was born, but im sure this part with be shoved aside anyhow.) The government should have NO ight to judge or control who people love and why so long as they are BOTH consenting to it with no control from either side(such as father pushing his daughter into it etc.) but given how the country works no one really looks at it like that..They look at a 16 yr old girl or 17 yr old boy and such having sex with family and almost always jump out and say "That CHILD was raped, they did not consent" Who are we to judge whether another person consented or not? how do you know they didn't.

Now if they are like 15 14 or younger then yes, the child is still not developed enough to really think about things like that. That in my opinion is completely wrong and should be illegal.

The main point i'm trying to make is the issue with incest is its outright law making it illegal has been been one sided and always has been. There are too many variables involved in that issue alone that makes the incest issue itself blurred and turned into something else. And everyone that has posted here has valid points for both sides of the argument.

But what people fail to see,(not necissarily anyone here but just as a generalization of people in the world.) Is that there ARE related couples who both consent and love each other and want it. As long as one party doesn't push the other to it then what is the harm in them loving each other? just make sure that they understand what will happen if they breed.

There is one thing though I would like to repeat that a few have put on here.

If the parents have been raised to believe incest is outright wrong and disgusting, then their children will be raised the same way, cutting off any chances of their children having such inhibitions towards their family. Everyone is entitled to their own rights, opinions and feelings. its because a majority of people within the world who make such decisions in the law are one sided and never once think about the other side. what if rules are made to allow such things and ensure it doesn't go too far then what is wrong with allowing such relationships to build. MAKE a define line between what can be considered a consensual age don't just look at the development of a child's brain, but their personality, behavior and their own feelings. Not all brains develop the same or as quickly. Not one person is the same.

With this post i am summing up everythin i feel and think about the things that have been discussed so far. but just like may other things in this country, the government is controlling every bit of freedom we have. They control for the moment, whether or not we can be gay and marry or not and still make a living in this country.now you say something wrong and you can be locked up simply for that.(all because people did such things and fucked it up for everyone else). I've seen people go after video games because it causes them to get violent kill people. and being a gamer myself that is bullshit. the parents are at fault for kids becoming that way because of VG. The simple point is the government and those in charge are limiting what we can do or at least our freedoms.

BUT everyone is entitled to their opinion and judgement. but before you outright damn the thought of making incest illegal with proper limitations and rights, don't push your ideas on others, let people think for themself, otherwise as a whole we will all become nothing more than simple minded fools who will fall and submit to the system. Rules are meant to be changed or rewritten.

And with that I end my opinion on the matter, if the situation is sound and both parties consent and have no intention to breed with one another, then just shut up and let them live their life, regardless of their relativity to one another.
 
While I agree with you, that free consent of the parties involved should be the ultimate determining factor, and the government should have no say in such intimate, consensual and personal decisions; another poignant point you made comes into play. Governmental intrusion into the most personal aspects of our lives, for purposes of micro management will be a rather drastic hurdle to any type of full-press legalization of incestuous cohabitation, much less marriage.

As the government becomes more involved with health-care related decisions, (as the Affordable Care Act's health insurance mandate exemplifies the first stages thereof)―preventative medicine will increasingly become the primary focus of both medical decisions and health-related regulations. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention will push for ever increasing regulations, not based upon individual choice, but on any amount of elevated risk. (The war on trans-fat comes to mind, or New York City's ban on large sugary soft-drinks). The goal will be keeping health-care decisions as cheap as possible, thereby keeping taxpayer subsidies, and premiums lower. (After all, bitterness is already spreading with relation to increased premium costs).

Consequently, I don't see the government taking the steps to legalize such relationships any time in the foreseeable future. And, if the government took such steps, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and an assortment of other “family protection” agencies would step in and regulate the legal status to such a degree, that it would wind up looking like the Texas Family Code provisions mentioned in my previous post. Alas, I'm neither condemning, nor condoning, such governmental actions, per se. Rather, I'm simply stating the reasons why I think it will not happen anytime soon, or, indeed, any time in the foreseeable future.

Now, with respect to keeping religious morality, or even morality in general out of the law; that task will prove difficult as well. I say this because of the fact that many aspects of the law, by its very nature, is related to such staunch beliefs. Take, for instance, the Criminal Justice System. Why does the government handle those issues, as opposed to the inflicted individuals? The answer boils down to the fact that the government acts, based on a moral wrong suffered by society, as a whole. I have often found this rather cantankerous, as it leaves open the question of “whose morality”, or “by what moral standards” we interpret such wrongs to have occurred.

Indeed, this creates a dangerous and rather dubious claim by the law. Yet, on the other hand, I see the need to prevent such actions from becoming increasingly wide spread. That being said, such arguments do seem to clash with the individual liberty, and the conscience of free will. The United States was founded on such notions. However, an additional hurdle presents itself to the legalization of such relationships, on the state level.

The Federal Government is limited to enumerated powers, as contained within the Constitution itself. State governments, on the other hand, have no such constraints, unless their actions conflict with federal law or the Constitution. In fact, states possess something known as “plenary” or absolute authority for law making. Part of the plenary powers is something known as the “general police power”. This “general police power” allows states to enact laws and regulations for the health, safety, morality, and general welfare of their people. That's a pretty wide swathe of protection.

Moreover, even if the parties seeking the consensual inter-related marriage or partnership brings a case all the way up to the Supreme Court, based on Equal Protection claims per the Fourteenth Amendment...I doubt it would get past any level of scrutiny. But, that point is moot anyway, because incestuous couples are not considered a protected class (such as race, gender, or ethnicity). Consequently, the case would be reviewed under the “Rational Basis” standard.

That is, the law or regulation against such relationships would not be deemed illegal, unless the government acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in prohibiting or allowing such conduct. In other words, the burden of proof falls upon the complainant (or the aggrieved inter-related couple brining suit) to prove that the government had “no rational basis for enacting such laws or restrictions). That's where there's going to be a problem.

The court will look to the mere CHANCE that birth defects would result from this, or the mere CHANCE that this relationship might cause some sort of harm to the over all well being of the parties seeking to enter into a consensual relationship like this, and determine that it is rational for the government to make such regulations and decisions, thereby ruling against the couple.

Is that fair? Probably not. But, it is a standard that the court has used for countless generations. As a result, I simply don't see this issue being resolved in favor of such relationships, not unless the entire thinking of the governmental system shifts entirely.

With regard to the age of consent, this area is so nuanced in the law, and differs to such an extent from one piece of legislation to another...much less one state from another, or even at the Federal level, that it becomes difficult to register. The statutory rape laws don't even allow for the consideration or defense of consent. I never agreed with that aspect of the law, especially in cases where one party is aged 18 and another is say 16 or 17. (Or lower, depending upon the individual jurisdiction's age of consent).

However, in cases of minor marriage, the minor is allowed to seek permission from the court to allow a marriage, even if the parents refuse consent. The court must make a determination as to whether the minor is capable of “consent” despite the disability of minority (as it is called in law). There's a whole litany of factors which the courts sift through to make the determination as to whether the disability of minority should be removed.

To have the disability of minority removed, the minor will need to ask the court to appoint an “attorney ad-litem” for the minor, as per Texas Family Code §§ 31.002(b) and 31.004. The reason for this is, minors cannot even bring a claim to court on their own. Thus, the attorney ad-litem serves as what the law refers to as the minor's “next friend” (essentially the minor's legal representative).

The attorney ad-litem will then argue the merits for removing the disability of minority, which includes such things as: (1) the emotional and physical well-being of the minor; (2) the ability of the minor to make financial decisions for him or herself; (3) the current status of relationship between the minor and the minor's parents, etc. etc. This test is what is known as “The best interest of the child test”.

Again, this falls well short of allowing certain consensual decisions, but it does provide some leeway. However, with respect to incestuous relationships, I believe the major hurdle is going to be not only the perceived emotional and physical well-being of the minor, but also the effect that it has on the minor's relationships with their parents and/or guardians. Perhaps it could work, but again, I just don't see any court changing for that, like they have in regards to say same-sex marriage. (That area of the law is changing. And, the one nice thing about the American Justice system, being a common law, as opposed to a civil law system), is that Courts are empowered to change the status of the law, depending upon the changing needs of society. But, no legal system will ever be perfect. Still, just as with the case of polygamy, or even bigamy, I don't see the courts changing the prohibition against incestuous relationships anytime soon.
 
I think that if both partners are of an age of emotional, physical and psychological stability and maturity; if there is 0 emotional abuse through grooming or manipulation to grow a child into a role of sexual partner; there is no conception of a child in either partner through such a relationship- there is definitely plausibility for this being legalised in theory.

But unfortunately until there is a way to make sure children are not being groomed or manipulated by selfishly driven adults in a position of trust and safety, it shouldn't be allowed to happen in parent-child circumstances.

With siblings and cousins, especially if estranged from birth, it should be legal I think. I mean as long as no babies or abuse become of it. Just two adults doing the dirty or being in love.
 
I think that, although it is weird to some, our moral concepts need to stop interfering in harmless rights. Seeing as rape is considered a crime, and for obvious reasons, I think incest, without being rape, doesn't really cause any harm to people. It's your body, who's gonna tell you what to do with it when it doesn't harm them?
 
I've always been interested in the psychology of incest.
I find my first cousin extremely attractive. We've kissed but nothing more. The thought of doing anything with my other or sisters makes me sick to my stomach though. I couldn't even imagine it.
 
This is a touchy subject for me and one that I'm not sure I want to get into at 5:30 in the morning after being up for 20 hours.

Should incest be illegal? In short, yes.

Why? As someone else pointed out, a few countries do have some allowances if the relation is far enough back but I think trying to expand out the law to encompass anything more than that would lead to people looking for loopholes and end up opening a can of worms that will be tied up in courts for years while the details are worked out.

I never knew my father and through the weirdest set of circumstances, ended up meeting my first cousin from his side and we were instantly attracted to one another. Nothing really happened outside of a make out session and some groping but this was before either of us knew. Needless to say when I found out his mom was my aunt, it made things extremely awkward between us and it still is to this day.

I also have a friend/associate who has been sleeping with her biological father since she was sixteen and she is twenty-eight now. They have had three children together, all with severe birth defects both physical and mental. To anyone else who hadn't gotten her drunk enough to spill the details wouldn't know. He is divorced from her mother and both are in long term but not committed relationships. The names on the birth certificates of the kids were always listed as Father Unknown.

The thing with parents and children bothers me to no end. Because regardless of just when attraction occurred, there is ALWAYS some type of grooming and morphing done by the parent. We raise our children how we believe they should act, be, and even think. Most of the times our actions aren't even conscious ones. But say, for instance, a father raises his daughter with traditional values... speak when spoken to, no sex before marriage, the male is the dominant in the relationship and should always be respected... even if he is not thinking of himself in that role and just preparing her for the future, then that knowledge and experience will be imparted on to the child in one form or another. The same way a physical features will be imparted. If a guy likes long hair, he'll probably encourage his daughter to have long hair. It may be innocent at the time, but down the line... it is still raising them to what will eventually become their own desires simply because a parent plays a huge part in development.

When it comes to siblings, it happens. But again, as someone else mentioned, there are usually deeper psychological issues going on there. It isn't about truly loving someone in the romantic way; more often than not it is seeking acknowledgement and acceptance from the sibling. In this case, you also have the genetic similarities should offspring occur that would lead to higher chances of birth defects.

Cousins are a bit of a hazy area. There is still the risk of birth defects if children are conceived. Take procreation out of the picture, by either contraceptives or sexuality, and then it becomes even more of a gray area. If they were close growing up, it could be a throw back to the incest of sibling thing where it becomes more about power and approval. If they weren't close growing up and were just a passing acquaintance, then it might be a genuine attraction that who knows what will grow from.

I don't think relations by marriage or adoption really count when it comes to incest though. If the ages are appropriate and both know what they are getting themselves into, then it is up to them. The blood relation and DNA isn't there to cause any problems. It will just make the family tree a bit muddled.

Another thing to take into consideration though is how an incestuous relationship will affect other areas of a person's life. Let's face it, at this point, you're looking at stigmas and discrimination. The rest of the family will likely not be supportive. I live in Georgia where even though interracial couples and same-sex couples are becoming less taboo, the hate toward them is still held by many people and even acted upon. People are going to react to someone's personal life even if they have no business or grounds to do so, even if it doesn't involve them. So add on to that the emotional and mental strain...

I'm not saying that there aren't cases where incest doesn't happen and where a relationship would actually work, but it is a very small percentage. There are just so many factors that would need to go into making it legal that I don't see it happening. At all. Ever. It was something of the past before we knew enough about genetics. Sure, there are some countries with laws that are more lax than other places. Hell, just watch any damn anime where there are cousins and incest is usually implied somewhere... but I think linear family is strictly off limits about anywhere.
 
It is illegal it causes too many defects for the next generation. The only loop poles are from ones who didn't know they were related and then it would be respected for them to divorce.
 
winx said:
It is illegal it causes too many defects for the next generation. The only loop poles are from ones who didn't know they were related and then it would be respected for them to divorce.

What if they don't conceive a child? What if they can't or choose not to reproduce?
 
The statistically low genetic alteration has already been discussed on the first 2 pages... :rolleyes:
 
If there's nothing of any actual substance that you can contribute that's worth merit to the topic, please refrain from commenting or posting. If it keeps up, this thread will be closed.

Thank you.
 
Tierhund said:
winx said:
It is illegal it causes too many defects for the next generation. The only loop poles are from ones who didn't know they were related and then it would be respected for them to divorce.

What if they don't conceive a child? What if they can't or choose not to reproduce?

It's still illegal to have a relation ship with a parent or sibling. I know it's illegal to marry your cousins in Canada.

I don't think first cousins should as they share half of the same DNA close to half siblings do, but then some of my family members wouldn't be alive, going back to the first world war generation, or just before. It's either my nanna's mum's first cousins what married or her nanna's.

It's not really incest if they aren't related by blood and it's in all countries first blood line siblings and parents, so it also depends on country what elts is legal or not.
 
winx said:
Tierhund said:
winx said:
It is illegal it causes too many defects for the next generation. The only loop poles are from ones who didn't know they were related and then it would be respected for them to divorce.

What if they don't conceive a child? What if they can't or choose not to reproduce?

It's still illegal to have a relation ship with a parent or sibling. I know it's illegal to marry your cousins in Canada.

I don't think first cousins should as they share half of the same DNA close to half siblings do, but then some of my family members wouldn't be alive, going back to the first world war generation, or just before. It's either my nanna's mum's first cousins what married or her nanna's.

It's not really incest if they aren't related by blood and it's in all countries first blood line siblings and parents, so it also depends on country what elts is legal or not.

..the point of this discussion isn't 'incest is illegal.', the topic of discussion is 'should incest be made legal; why, why not'. Just saying A is B doesn't actually mean anything in this context, nor is it a supportive argument??

So what if they share DNA? What if they're homosexual? Infertile? What if they never knew each other/were seperated/adopted? What if they have no intention to have kids?

The big issues with making incest illegal is (child)abuse and genetic deformity/increased susceptibility to disease/weaker immune system. If you're not making babies, and you're both consenting adults who may or may not known each other as blood relatives, what the fuck is the problem here?

Tbh it seems people are just easily squeamish.

Also the possibility of having genetic memory in response to incest, aka, our olfactory response to rotting food, or our visual response to open wounds. It's an instinctive aversion to avoid unpleasant consequence.
 
Tierhund said:
..the point of this discussion isn't 'incest is illegal.', the topic of discussion is 'should incest be made legal; why, why not'. Just saying A is B doesn't actually mean anything in this context, nor is it a supportive argument??

So what if they share DNA? What if they're homosexual? Infertile? What if they never knew each other/were seperated/adopted? What if they have no intention to have kids?

The big issues with making incest illegal is (child)abuse and genetic deformity/increased susceptibility to disease/weaker immune system. If you're not making babies, and you're both consenting adults who may or may not known each other as blood relatives, what the fuck is the problem here?

Tbh it seems people are just easily squeamish.

Also the possibility of having genetic memory in response to incest, aka, our olfactory response to rotting food, or our visual response to open wounds. It's an instinctive aversion to avoid unpleasant consequence.
The problem with incest being illegal is two-fold really. Firstly, the obvious reason of if the woman gets pregnant the baby has a high chance of being deformed or disabled due to genetics! However, there is a second reason it's illegal and that's because of grooming. If incest is legal, an older relative could groom a younger one from an early age.

So, once they are old enough to consent (as you say) they could have been groomed into thinking that sleeping with the relative is the most normal and logical thing to do. That's a huge problem to be honest. It's not healthy and can lead to complications later on in their lives. They will have problem bonding with anyone that isn't a family member!
 
Sierra you literally just repeated back to me everything I've said in this entire thread lmao
 
Back
Top Bottom