Poll: I know I'm probably going to hell for this, but...

[Jacob.pederson]

Despite the trollish nature of the post, it did remind me of something. The biological anti-incest drive is actually not triggered by the relatedness of individuals, but the amount of time you spent with them as children. I believe this was discovered in communist orphanages, where children refused to marry those they had been raised with. Incest between brothers and sisters who were not raised together is actually MORE likely because of all you're likely to have in common with each other.

You can also see this effect in High School classes that are small enough that you all know each other . . . and stable enough so you've been in almost every grade together. Sexual relationships between classes (or with recent arrivals) are much more common that those within the same class.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

No. I'm personally against it because that's how disability babies are born, plus I find it as many other things that I won't say, so as not to offend anyone who does it, but no, it definitely shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Gigano]

...

That's why I said "almost" always.

Your example would be fine - but very unusual. I was talking about an adult parent and an under aged child, which I believe is the most common (or at least the most recorded) type of incest. It's also illegal for a number of other reasons besides the incest.

I think the whole discussion takes place under the presumption that it go on between consenting adults (or at least persons above the age of consent), that's kind of the prerequisite for any sex acts being acceptable in the real world.

 

[Torrasque]

I wasn't aware of it being illegal. Maybe in some cultures, but I am pretty sure its not illegal here in Canada; its just massively social taboo.
I said "no" in the poll because it doesn't really seem to be something that should be legal or illegal, or even mentioned when law comes into play. As for social law, I have no say in that, so /shrug.

What do I think of incest?
I've had a few cousins that I wish weren't cousins, lol...
But either way, I think incest is inherently wrong. The whole point of life and procreation is to spread your genes and achieve genetic immortality (as far as I see it, when boiled down to the bare facts). When you mate with someone who shares many of your genes (enough to be considered family, and to be considered incest), you are not really spreading your genes at all. Besides that, your child will likely have alot of birth defects, and have to deal with people knowing that they are the product of incest (unless the child is raised in a society where incest is ok)
Psychologically, I still think incest is inherently wrong. Why? Because when you join a relationship with someone, both of you should grow and develop into better people because of each other. This can't really happen if you are related to them. Hell, I know alot of people that have dated/married the person they grew up with, and very few of them are happy, lol.

This post sums up my TL;DR post:

Having a sexual relationship? Knock yourself out.
Having children? No.

Edit: Forgot to mention the consent part.
If they are both adults, and they both consent, then why the hell not.

 

[4173]

I was under the impression that inbreeding is only dangerous after multiple generations. I'm not sure the risk at the beginning varies much when compared to any couple that doesn't take a genetic test.

(Perfectly willing to be wrong, this is just what I think I've read)


The only argument that has some influence on me is that incest needs to be illegal to protect minors or others manipulated by undue influence. IANAL, but wouldn't pre-existing laws such as rape, child neglect or abuse, assault etc. be enough?

 

[Aris Khandr]

If everyone agrees, I don't see why not. Plus, you know, three-ways with twins.

...that are related to you. Thats what you mean right?

Nope.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

You have to have some serious genetic defect to even be attracted to family members.

 

[Thimblefoot]

I'm against incest, having sex with your own family members is just sick.

Poll is split even at 348 votes each way as well 0_o

 

[DisturbiaWolf13]

Wow, 50/50. That's pretty amazing.

 

[Marik2]

LOL the polls are evenly split.

I dont care if people want to have sex with their siblings if everything is consent and age, but I do have a problem if they want to have a kid biologically.

Since the child will most likely suffer genetic dysfunctions.

 

[lulztaco]

Make it illegal? no... without consent? well isn't that illegal regardless of if it's incest or not?... Socially unacceptable? yes...

 

[Ohhi]

It doesn't really matter to me either way I am not into incest. So if both parties are of age and give consent than yeah go for it.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

SNIP

No. I'm personally against it because that's how disability babies are born

Incest leads to all sorts of genetic diseases, so yes it should definately be illegal.

4.The obvious health risks of reproduction.

Even when a man and a woman are related by great-grandparents, kids can be born with severe mental disabillities.

Shouldn't have children... At least not biologically

[spoiler = counter arguement][/spoiler]

We have a winner of the "inbred babies have a MUCH HIGHER CHANCE OF GENETIC DISEASE!" ignorance rampage. Seriously. This isnt true. WHO TELLS PEOPLE THESE THINGS! It has a TINY basis in reality and is pretty much 99% PURE BULLSHIT.

Heres the thing kiddies, the % chance of a genetic disease with incest? Doubled. Sounds big doesnt it. However 2 times 0.0002% is erm 0.0004%. Im not saying doubled as a rough estimate. Its doubled. Almost exactly. It comes from having homoligous pairs of chromosomes that can lead to a genetic disease. Because the parents are related the chance of this pair of chromosomes being homoloigous is larger, as they likely have MANY genes the same as their partner. The issue is if they (by the same random chance as anyone else) have a single gene for a birth defect out of the two. They will be fine, however if they breed with someone else with this single gene the disease will be present. The only way for a birth defect to happen is if the parents BOTH accidently had half the genes for a birth defect already. Which is the same chance as you having a birth defect. AKA very very very low.

Dont understand the science? Dont talk about it. You dont get to make shit up because you dont understand.

snip

Please put part of this post in the OP, this rampant ignorance irks me so.

 

[scorptatious]

I don't think it should be legal. The resulting gene pools lack diversity from both parents, so as a result, the ensuing genrations created through incest become weaker over time. Not to mention birth defects are created through this kind of thing.

On a related note:



Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net [http://www.explosm.net/]

I love Cyanide and Happiness.

 

[Gibboniser]

Hmm, if ... if both parties give consent, why not? Oh, and the whole inbred children thing is vastly exaggerated, effects appear over the course of many generations, as faulty genes are inherent, and become more common, but this takes time, a brother and sisters child isn;t going to be forced to have webbed toes.

 

[Knusper]

I guess you can always screen the embryo to make sure it doesn't have any serious disorders.

Also, isn't it our human right to have children?

 

[Do4600]

It does kinda ruin whatever gene pool you had going if there is a child so there is a practical side to this. I don't think I can really comment on this further, I don't even have a sibling of the opposite sex so I don't even know what's it like to grow up with one let alone contemplate such an act.

 

[Yopaz]

Incest will in very many cases result in defects. It's illegal for a reason. Keep it that way. You mentioned Huntington and Downs. Those are very bad, and the chances are high, but at least you didn't choose to get Huntington. You may choose to avoid birth defects by not mating with your family.

 

[Crash 9000]

I've had sex with my sister, so no quarrel here.

 

[Yopaz]

I guess you can always screen the embryo to make sure it doesn't have any serious disorders.

Also, isn't it our human right to have children?

It's not. This is what always comes up in the discussions with adoptions, surrogates etc. It's not a right to get children.