Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Incest...ok or morally reprehensible?; Talk about whether you think it's ok to have in society or if it is so vile it deserves ALL OF YOUR HATE.
Topic Started: Jun 24 2013, 01:50 PM (1,322 Views)
Vindicated57

I suppose I have no way to rebuff the family vs. friends comment, just because I do see a lot of my family as friends, not blood, so I can understand that comment.

However, when it comes to parents and kids, I cannot deny that there are plenty of parent-child relationships that are not great. However, having said that, if we're going to discuss what it means to be a parent, and we agree that parents should always understand their role and responsibilities to their kids, then they should never try to tempt their children into a sexual relationship.

Now, we say this because they bore the children, they are older, they are responsible, and they should have the common sense not to perform such acts with children, especially given the age gap. And the age gap is what I'm going to use to draw us back to siblings. Unless we're talking about twins, there will be an older sibling. Is it not still the older sibling's responsibility to avoid any kind of sexual contact with the younger sibling because he/she should be a friend/teacher/protector? Is it not the older sibling's responsibility to maintain that standing? If they drop that role and try to become a lover instead, does it still break the trust that existed before, just like in reference to children and parents? And if they break the trust, then how can they become romantically involved? At that point it seems just as guilt ridden as parent and child to mine own eye.

As for orphans, that's something that probably should not be discussed because that is something completely different. For example, genetics has already been stated. We will not have mutated babies if one sibling couple decide to have kids. However, it will increase the chance for a mutation. Right? Well, in the case of orphans, we are talking about a different biological issue: pheromones. These kids are not related by blood. And they are growing up together, just like it was stated. Maybe they're friends, maybe they hate each other. It has the potential to develop relationships like school (college maybe a better example). They have to be around each other all the time. They have to smell each other. If both of them are of an age to be able to participate in sexual activity, even if they are not attracted to each other, they will think about sex (because, come on, who didn't as a teenager). That will produce pheromones because the body wants to mate. These pheromones can easily attract another orphan because, again, we are biologically designed for it. So, them being attracted is a thing of nature.

Anyways, let's really, really bring this back around to the point of the topic: is it morally okay? Um...I still have to say no. It's really the trust and age thing for me. Parents, as we can all agree, should not break the sanctity of trust with their kids. And I think it should be the same way with siblings. I do have two sisters, I've never felt a sexual attraction to them. Even if I had, they are 14 and 9 years older than me. So, even if I had tried something, they would still be responsible for making sure that I understand why a relationship could not happen. When I have kids, if my kids are attracted to each other, I have to ask, at what age did it start? Was the older one the aggressor? Did it become molestation? I have to make certain that my kids understand their roles with each other: friend, confidant, teachers. Because, how do I know both parties are consenting? How do I know it started out as consenting? At least if they go on a date I can say they had some kind of interest in the other person. I'm not even going to go what could happen on a date, not to mention it's off topic.

Anyways, having said all that, if people are comfortable with incest then that's life. I don't think I can be, personally, but I'm definitely not going to turn into a movie and start calling people monsters.

I've seen great arguments and I commend everyone for keeping this civil and logical. This has been a pretty great argument/opinionated thread. Dare I suggest a new one, like, American Gun Control (Totally not fair to argue about it in Canada or England, countries that seem more and more appealing the crazier the States become).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ViperKang
Member Avatar

I wouldn't recommend region based debate threads only because it feels odd, personal opinion here, to have such a diverse forum in terms of nationalities to discuss a domestic problem. I feel like it would be akin to arguing whether British royalty should just stop being a thing. It would be odd for someone not British to comment on something so fundamentally British. With that said if you want a gun control debate thread Vin make it. Just be sure to moderate and if you see people acting up contact an admin so they can regulate.
Edited by ViperKang, Jun 25 2013, 08:16 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Vindicated57

Honestly, I think it's an important issue but I don't see such a thread coming of any good. So, I guess, no, I shall avoid it for now. I'll just wait for the bombs to go off. Sadly, they're not that far from me. Well, I guess if I'm going to look on the bright side of life, it means I don't suffer. I'm just dead ;)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PvtCryan502
Member Avatar
More than Just a Conjurer of Cheap Tricks
I go with the people who don't want thr mutated children..... that's all.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ViperKang
Member Avatar

The children aren't mutated. They just suffer from having an increased likelyhood of degenerative genes being present. A brother/sister couple could have kids who the only bad thing that happens is their kids have brown hair while the parents are blonde because brown was a resessive gene that became dominant due to the nature of the relationship.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Huzzahfortimelines
Member Avatar

PvtCryan502
Jun 25 2013, 08:28 AM
I go with the people who don't want thr mutated children..... that's all.
Pvt, I don't understand this post. Are you saying that you are against incest, or saying that you won't do it yourself?
For example, I'm not against gay-marriage, but I am personally not interested in men. The type of discussion we are having is the former.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Himmelgeher
Member Avatar

Viper, that's just simply not true. From Wikipedia

Quote:
 
A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%. Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding. A study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities, including four directly attributable to autosomal recessive alleles.


Yes, it's possible for an incest baby to survive and live a crippling disability free life, just like it's possible for a puppy to survive being thrown into a hot oven. That doesn't make it a good idea. While incest itself cannot create mutations, it does make it far more likely for recessive genetic anomalies (colloquially termed "mutation," which is the way the word is used in this context) present in most humans to surface in the child, because the parents would both be passing down the same recessive alleles, as opposed to the healthier/more evolutionarily advantageous dominant alleles that would only have to be passed down by one parent in non-incestuous couples.

There are a litany of reasons I am opposed to incest, but I don't really care to go into them right now. Hypothetically though, if someone could convince me that it's even remotely acceptable, I would still say that sterilization should absolutely be mandatory. The brother should have a vasectomy, and the sister should have her tubes tied. It's selfish and irresponsible of those couples to allow the risk of reproduction between themselves, and no method of contraception is going to be as certain as implementing both of these methods.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Huzzahfortimelines
Member Avatar

I agree with Himmel here. To be honest, I do not care wether the after-effects are physical, or psychological, or even have a 50% chance of not working, I do not think incest-couples should be allowed to reproduce.

**EDIT** The same goes for anyone who will have a very high chance of giving a severe untreadable decease to a child. (The reason why I outline severe, is because I don't think a child should need to be completely perfect, but if there is a chance that his life will be so affected by his psychological, or physical decease, to the point that he is unable to lead a happy life, it should be prevented that the couple have a child).
Edited by Huzzahfortimelines, Jun 25 2013, 09:41 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232635.php No evidence that human have pheromones, so that argument is invalid.

And I agree that incestous couples should not be able to have children, just adopt. Hell, I don't even think bipolar people should reproduce. Living with 2 of them gives a lot of insight, and I think adopting would be better off.

I honestly don't think that there's anything wrong with a sibling who took responsibility over another (Although I do not believe they should) switching to having a romantic relationship if both parties consent and are happy. If a therapist wanted to date their patient, would that be immoral?
As for the age gap, I know a couple that have been happily married for over 10 years, and the male is 9 years older than the female. I don't see anything wrong with it, because both parties consent and they love each other very much. They're having a second child soon, too.

I'm in complete agreement with Huzzah. I can't even picture myself in a relationship with a man (I'm primarily asexual, but not entirely opposed to dating women), but I'm absolutely fine with homosexul relationships.
I absolutely despise the thought of me myself being in a relationship with, say, my sister. (That's repulsive to me). But if a brother and sister tell me that they love each other, both fully consent, and they want to be together, I could never tell them otherwise or stop them.
Edited by Warden of Wisdom, Jun 25 2013, 10:39 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ViperKang
Member Avatar

Himmel you proved my point. The wiki says it right there. Resessive alleles. Meanign resessive genes. So their children are NOT mutated. They are just the result of resessive genes being more likely to be dominant. You WANT non resessive genes for a healthy child. Hence why incest children are more prone to abnormalities. All I was saying is to call them mutations is false. A mutation would be if somehow having a child through incest gave the kid gills.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.