Discussion Forums > The Lounge

Incest

<< < (7/35) > >>

fohfoh:
I personally think that ludwigrm knows a lot of stuff, but misinterprets a lots of stuff too.

As far as I know, the abolition of incest began with animism. Or, the origins of religion if you want to think of it that way. However, if you jump onto a mentality of "religion does it, I'm an atheist, therefore, I'm opposite and incest is acceptable and fine." you're obviously a moron. Animism is taken as the root of religion, but the original definition and a definition still at times argued and debated for the root of the word religion in religious studies is a teaching that is carried forward from someone in the past. That means that something as simple as a name is technically religious because it carried forward from a prior generation.

Now, fuck the history lesson, ignore the moronic responses to the people who don't bother to read and let's more forward.

In ancient times, considered prior to large civilizations, it was discovered that high levels of incest would cause destruction within a tribe. It would weaken tribes and also cause a lot of complications health wise in individuals. Animism therefore presented the tribe with certain things. Identity and rules. Rules within the tribe to keep it safe and ensure survival.  (the latter being the true goal of the rules) and Identity. To know which tribes are enemies and to know which tribes were "safe" to have interchanging of genetics to ensure the survival of both tribes. While most glaze over the interactions as strategic alliances, there is also an underlying exchange of genetics. Marriage etc. Water world gives a little interesting take on such an idea of incest, or the fact that genetics are being spooled out. Another case study (forgot which class it was, some soci class) showed that a village that had been hidden away for a long time ended up with genes that were pretty much stretched too far genetically (or however you would refer to the continual exchange of similar genes). They discovered issues with puberty. Females that would not develop into males such until after puberty when correct chemicals stimulate proper growth. (This is a video case study)

Now, those that would argue, if they want to ride to self destruction, let them do so. Great statement. But realize also the difference in context. The above contextual level is based on the idea of a communal society. Damaging one part of it is unacceptable. The argument in this paragraph which is an emulation of others like it is a statement based on individualistic perspective. What XY does will not affect me. So why care? In a totally individualistic society, I can possibly agree. However, to remove laws concerning this IMO is pure idiocy. It creates moral hazard (taking more risk than you would generally take).

People love all sorts of things that are not socially accepted. Get with the fucking program. Big example, illegal drugs. There's a legal side, and an illegal one. You don't see a huge clamor for consensus for the legalization of it. Though certainly people have tried. On the other hand, you also see people engage in it legal or not, socially accepted or not.

If you are engaged in something somewhat illegal for (IMO, outdated, but legit reasons) and you just want people to accept you for it so that you can feel better about yourself... that's stupid. But if someone can provide true legitimate grounds as to there being no negative effects of incest, I cannot see why tradition should be considered a golden cow and not be changed.

However, legitimate reason stands to uphold the illegality of incest. Or at least I have been led to believe with both tradition and empirical data from religion AND science.

phufham:
i say if they want to then let em

fohfoh:

--- Quote from: phufham on October 08, 2010, 06:03:07 PM ---i say if they want to then let em

--- End quote ---

Just because I'm not going to bug them for doing so doesn't mean I'm going to rally for the legalization of it. On the contrary. Now, you're making me get off my fat ass for something I don't care about. I'd rather fight against you. Seems more fun.

Not you as in you. I meant you as in those who engage in incest.

JoonasTo:
Just to uphold the wolves' honour. They pair for life. And only the alpha pair has puppies. They have no place in this discussion.

Tiffanys:
Incest itself isn't the problem, it's siring children from close blood relations due to the nature of recessive alleles.

Generally everyone has some sort of recessive disease of some kind or another. When mates are chosen from a non-related group then generally there's a very small chance that you're going to happen to find a mate that possesses the same recessive diseases that you do. But, if you were to mate with say your brother or sister, then there's quite a higher chance depending on how closely your genetic similarities are. Identical twins for instance would have a hell of a time, except for the fact that identical twins have that whole tiny little problem of not being able to sire offspring with the same gender and all. Generally, if you get half from your mother and half from your father than you have a 1 in 4 chance of having something and your sibling would also have a 1 in 4 chance which then makes it a 1 in 16 chance of passing it on to your offspring if the two of you were to get it on.

So, producing offspring with a close blood relation is generally not a good idea since it has much higher chances of producing bad results (1/16 compared to about 1/800). But, with that aside, I don't see any problem between the relationships themselves. Sexual, or otherwise.

Obviously, I suspect we'll be able to have designer babies sometime in the somewhat near future, so it wouldn't really be a problem at that point. But until then, adoption and the like or just not having children should be an option. But, they should be able to have their relationship. I do believe there's a law of some sort, at least in the US that reads something like, "No private sexual relations between two consenting adults shall be made unlawful" or something along those lines, which I think this should certainly fall under.

I'm not against regulating child bearing among incestuous relationships, bearing screenings and the like (and possibly out right rejection and abortions enforced), but they should have every right in the world to have an intimate relationship with whoever they'd like. As long as they're both consenting adults I really see no problem with it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page