Legalizing incestual relationships and marriage

[Marcus II]

PLEASE Read this entire post and thread before posting responses.

This post isn't that lengthy, but thorough. It covers obvious points by both people for and against the issue.

NOTE: I am playing the devil's advocate here. This does not reflect my actual beliefs, but rather for the sake of argument and better understanding.

--------------------

Just a few minutes ago, I read a thread in the Political Mudpit regarding a Muslim man, petitioning for the legalization of polygamy in Australia.

From the various posts written throughout it, there were stances that pointed out how polygamy is or isn't a problem. The main rationale of proponents see "if the couple doesn't mind taking on more husbands/wives, then it isn't a problem. As long as it is consensual, and no one gets hurt."

This got me thinking one step further.

Why not legalize incest, making it possible for brother and sister to marry? Father and daughter to marry? Mother and son?..etc.


PRO ARGUMENT:
- If the couple both love each other dearly, just like any other romantic couple, why should it be a problem?
- It is just like polygamy and gay marriage. It does not hurt anyone, if both consent.

AGAINST ARGUMENT:
- Genetic mutations and complications in offspring.

PRO:
- It isn't anymore serious than mentally handicapped people having offspring of their own - which is legal. Both have the risk of genetic complications, but both are capable of having perfectly healthy children.

ANTI:
- The risk is tremendously higher.

PRO:
- Genetic screening and technology allows us to harvest eggs and sperm, and pair two together that would avoid such problems.

--------------------

Please discuss.

I must also ask that for those who will take on the Anti-Argument, to refrain from using religious arguments (E.g. Sinful argument).

[Valentin the II]

The genetic damage alone would make it undysirable.

[Marcus II]

PRO:
- Genetic screening and technology allows us to harvest eggs and sperm, and pair two together that would avoid such problems.

[Green]

- Genetic screening and technology allows us to harvest eggs and sperm, and pair two together that would avoid such problems.

I'm not aware that genetic technology is advanced enough for us to eliminate most problems with incest.

If you're going to make a pro-argument for incest, you should slap an age limit on it of course. Because a lot of incestuous activities seem to happen non-consensually and at an early age with a child/teen and an adult.

[removeduser_487563287433]

t isn't anymore serious than mentally handicapped people having offspring of their own - which is legal. Both have the risk of genetic complications, but both are capable of having perfectly healthy children.

Wrong. You need to be more specific than saying "mentally handicapped" but in any case they are passing down the risk of genetic disease rather than in incest where it carries the risk of creating genetic mutations. Mutation is utterly unpredictable, it would be impossible to screen for it.

[Marcus II]

double-post. Delete

[czePowerslave]

- It is just like polygamy and gay marriage. It does not hurt anyone, if both consent.

Well, how is gay marriage similar to incestous marriage? Am I missing something there? I mean, two different guys, not brothers etc, who like (..) each other, whats the big deal, what damage can that do to society?
now think about incestous marriage...

[Marcus II]

Well, how is gay marriage similar to incestous marriage? Am I missing something there? I mean, two different guys, not brothers etc, who like (..) each other, whats the big deal, what damage can that do to society?
now think about incestous marriage...

Well if we're talking about damage to society, isn't that the fault of society, and not the couple?

For instance, if we lived back in the middle ages, and someone preached about democracy, freedom of speech and religion - would that have not caused damage to society? The very foundations upon which their civilizations were formed upon would be utterly crushed if the preacher succeeded.

Wrong. You need to be more specific than saying "mentally handicapped" but in any case they are passing down the risk of genetic disease rather than in incest where it carries the risk of creating genetic mutations. Mutation is utterly unpredictable, it would be impossible to screen for it.

True. I should have re-worded the argument as "reduces the risk" instead of "avoiding".

However it still does not change the main point. There are people who suffer from countless medical conditions that are hereditary and life-threatening, but there are no laws criminalizing what they do reproductively.

If you're going to make a pro-argument for incest, you should slap an age limit on it of course. Because a lot of incestuous activities seem to happen non-consensually and at an early age with a child/teen and an adult.

True. We should assume the relationship is at the very least 18+ for the younger member.

[Keravnos]

In a world which has million shades of grey, this one is a deffinite and clear black and white.

NO!

ALL incestuous relationship is wrong. Period.

Civilization was based on the ban on incestuous relationships. This was one of the base standard rules on any society, wherever it is based. It has been so ever since the beginning. Inter-relations within a incestuous family collapse, when father becomes lover, or siblings have sex among themselves. Genetic damage is absolute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

Ancient Greeks' Oedipus tyrant is a clear view on how it was viewed in ancient times. I don't see why or how this can change. Or should.

[czePowerslave]

Well if we're talking about damage to society, isn't that the fault of society, and not the couple?

For instance, if we lived back in the middle ages, and someone preached about democracy, freedom of speech and religion - would that have not caused damage to society? The very foundations upon which their civilizations were formed upon would be utterly crushed if the preacher succeeded.

How could that do a damage to society? I mean, people did and died for it. Thats all. Eventually it came to practical life. Because most of ppl saw it FIT. But in this matter, AW! NO WAY!

[Marcus II]

How could that do a damage to society? I mean, people did and died for it. Thats all. Eventually it came to practical life. Because most of ppl saw it FIT. But in this matter, AW! NO WAY!

It damaged societal structure as a whole: The church lost its power. The feudal system was eradicated. People became secular. Rise of nationalism and different political ideologies. Overall tolerance of other religions and beliefs rose..etc (World isn't flat after all!)

[MaximiIian]

Well, how is gay marriage similar to incestuous marriage? Am I missing something there? I mean, two different guys, not brothers etc, who like (..) each other, what's the big deal, what damage can that do to society?
now think about incestuous marriage...

The similarity is that they are people whose personal life is of no concern to the government. If those people love each other, there is no reason for them not to be in a relationship, have sex, or get married. Any "genetic damage" is mitigated by birth control, condoms, and other contraceptives. This is the 21st century, after all.

And, besides, the first child in a cousin or sibling pair has no real genetic damage. It takes generations upon generations of inbreeding, like that the European royals, to have any significant genetic problems arise. So, even if an incestuous couple has children, they won't have any genetic defects, any moreso than a regular couple's children would.

[czePowerslave]

The similarity is that they are people whose personal life is of no concern to the government. If those people love each other, there is no reason for them not to be in a relationship, have sex, or get married. Any "genetic damage" is mitigated by birth control, condoms, and other contraceptives. This is the 21st century, after all.

And, besides, the first child in a cousin or sibling pair has no real genetic damage. It takes generations upon generations of inbreeding, like that the European royals, to have any significant genetic problems arise. So, even if an incestuous couple has children, they won't have any genetic defects, any moreso than a regular couple's children would.

I never argued with genetic disorded knowing the %% risk is too small on short term. Someone above mentioned one fact that I might put out now - abusability of such allowance. I dont want to even think about it.

[Marcus II]

ALL incestuous relationship is wrong. Period.

That is not a valid argument.

Inter-relations within a incestuous family collapse, when father becomes lover, or siblings have sex among themselves.

Not if the family consents to it. There are other things that can ruin family bonds, such as marrying outside one's religion, or marrying a foreigner..etc. Does this mean those things should be illegal too?

Genetic damage is absolute.

Incorrect.

I don't see why or how this can change. Or should.

Because you can't see it, means it shouldn't?

Civilization was based on the ban on incestuous relationships. This was one of the base standard rules on any society, wherever it is based. It has been so ever since the beginning.

Incorrect. Ptolemaic Pharaohs practiced incest regularly, among with countless other nobility throughout the ages. The Japanese royal line practiced this too to some extent. From Europe to the far east.

[czePowerslave]

And that did damage how? So we should be sorry for our way of live now?

[Marcus II]

And that did damage how? So we should be sorry for our way of live now?

I pointed out how major change in history damaged society.

When I say "damaged" I do not mean for worse. I say it in the context of the incumbent powers losing their influence, giving rise to a new age - for better or worse.

[Floppy]

I´m against it.

First of all, the problem of mutations and mental handycaps is there, it´s not an illusion. Seen on a large scale basis (if incest would be allowed and integrated into society), people wouldn´t be able to handle it (my belief).
Yes you can bypass it with sperm from someone else, but seriously, how many people would do that? I guess it´s less that 50%.
@ Ptolemaics: That is interesting to know about, but do you also have record of how many babies where killed right after birth because of genetic complications?

My second point is, that I serously believe, that it would end up in a dramatical increase of sexual crimes (Father and doughter,..., you know what I mean).

Greetings Floppy

[czePowerslave]

I´m against it.

First of all, the problem of mutations and mental handycaps is there, it´s not an illusion. Seen on a large scale basis (if incest would be allowed and integrated into society), people wouldn´t be able to handle it (my belief).
Yes you can bypass it with sperm from someone else, but seriously, how many people would do that? I guess it´s less that 50%.
@ Ptolemaics: That is interesting to know about, but do you also have record of how many babies where killed right after birth because of genetic complications?

My second point is, that I serously believe, that it would end up in a dramatical increase of sexual crimes (Father and doughter,..., you know what I mean).

Greetings Floppy

sad but true. I agree with you.

[jman47]

this kind of crap is EXACTLY why even gay marraige cannot be allowed. the simple fact is if we allow marraige to mean anything, then it in truth means nothing. why not let a human marry an animal if nobody gets hurt and they really love that animal? or how about those people in that other thread i saw that are attracted to cars? should they be allowed to marry cars?

For gods sake it is a slippery slope that leads to the promotion of disgusting attractions by the government. all it is telling people its OK to go against everything that religon, or if your not religous, nature, says is right. you dont see gay animals, you dont see a steer fing a moose, so even if you arent religous and believe in evolution and that we are nothing more than advanced monkeys, that still means that homosexuality, wild interspecies relationships, and all this other perverse behavior is not part of the natural order. the fact that things such as polygamy or incest are even up for serious argument in a debate about morals and ethics shows the moral depravity this world has decended into.

[czePowerslave]

this kind of crap is EXACTLY why even gay marraige cannot be allowed. the simple fact is if we allow marraige to mean anything, then it in truth means nothing. why not let a human marry an animal if nobody gets hurt and they really love that animal? or how about those people in that other thread i saw that are attracted to cars? should they be allowed to marry cars?

For gods sake it is a slippery slope that leads to the promotion of disgusting attractions by the government. all it is telling people its OK to go against everything that religon, or if your not religous, nature, says is right. you dont see gay animals, you dont see a steer fing a moose, so even if you arent religous and believe in evolution and that we are nothing more than advanced monkeys, that still means that homosexuality, wild interspecies relationships, and all this other perverse behavior is not part of the natural order. the fact that things such as polygamy or incest are even up for serious argument in a debate about morals and ethics shows the moral depravity this world has decended into.

Welcome to the Real World of 21st century