Incest

[SliK]

This is a topic that has really interested me for the last 12 months or so.

I'm interested in learning how TR (and society in general) feels about incest. Please read this entire post before commenting.

I want to know the different between the arguments that are applied to gay marriage and incest. What I mean by that is, what argument can you think of that applies to homosexual marriage, that supports their cause, that doesn't also support incest?

I see people advocating for gay rights, which I support, using arguments that apply 100% to incestuous relationships, such as "love is universal, it doesn't have boundaries" or "what happens between two people is nobody else's business" or "if it isn't hurting anyone it isn't a problem", etc.

These people will generally HATE you if you tell them gay marriage is wrong. They will fire up, no doubt. It's funny how many of them are disgusted by incest though. I try explaining to supporters of gay marriage that their disgust for incest and those who practice it comes from the same descriminatory place that homophobia comes from. They're generally too ignorant to acknowledge that fact, though.

So my question is really in two parts. And please, if you are against both gay relations and incestuous relations, don't focus on the fact that its "wrong", I'm not really interered in anyone's individual feelings on the issue. I want to know the following:

1) Can you argue for one specific type of love, using the arguments listed above, and still exclude certain types such as incest?

2) Is there anything "wrong" with incest, other than the "taboo" feeling society has created?


I am supportive of any consensual relationship between adults. Whether its male on male, woman on woman, mother and son, brother and sister, whatever.

Discuss.

[classthe_king]

Incest fucks with the genes when they procreate therefore it does hurt someone: the child.

[SliK]

Incest fucks with the genes when they procreate therefore it does hurt someone: the child.

2 counter arguments:
1) People who aren't related have disabled babies. With technology and what not these days you can tell if the baby will be disabled and have it aborted if it is. That's no different to what every couple should be doing, but that's for another debate. It is not a guarantee that the baby will have anything wrong with it at all. If unrelated people can have disabled babies, you can't stop people marrying because their chance is slightly higher.

2) In many places around the world cousins can legally marry. There is a higher chance of cousins passing on defects than unrelated people, yet it is allowed.

Edit: couldn't find a source to back up the claim that cousins have a higher chance of passing on defects than siblings so I removed it.

[classthe_king]

Incest fucks with the genes when they procreate therefore it does hurt someone: the child.

2 counter arguments:
1) People who aren't related have disabled babies. With technology and what not these days you can tell if the baby will be disabled and have it aborted if it is. That's no different to what every couple should be doing, but that's for another debate. It is not a guarantee that the baby will have anything wrong with it at all. If unrelated people can have disabled babies, you can't stop people marrying because their chance is slightly higher.

No you can't, there have been many cases they thought the baby would have something wrong with it but then it was completely fine. And it's not slightly higher, it's significantly higher.

2) In many places around the world cousins can legally marry. There is a higher chance of cousins having disabled babies than brother and sister. That's a fact, yet cousins are granted the right to wed.

Then you shouldn't allow cousins to marry around the world, not the opposite.

[SliK]

Outside sources such as cigarettes, alcohol, abuse, etc all contribute much more (up to a 15% higher risk) to birth defects than being related.
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview
Should we outlaw the marriage between smokers? Or what about people who drink alcohol? Should they have their right to marry revoked?

[classthe_king]

Outside sources such as cigarettes, alcohol, abuse, etc all contribute much more (up to a 15% higher risk) to birth defects than being related.
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview
Should we outlaw the marriage between smokers? Or what about people who drink alcohol? Should they have their right to marry revoked?

No but they should have their right to drink and smoke during pregnancy revoked.

[Ticalrecords]

I'm pretty sure most of the time, its a father and his daughter or a brother and his younger sister and in those case, there really isnt any "consent" on the daughter's part, its her father (or brother), she will be forced to do whatever he wants her to do (usually through intimidation). the whole genes part is the main argument, even if the likelihood of mutations occuring in incest was even SLIGHTLY higher than in two unrelated adults (which is it is not, it is much MUCH higher), the mutations themselves are much more drastic in incest than in a "normal" relationship. your comparing the potential of being born with 3 arms to the potential of being ADHD.... or something like that loll. also, not quite sure you brought gayness into the argument... incest can create life - a fucked up one, but life nonetheless. being gay means you can't procreate with your significant other, so they really aren't hurting anyone else, least of all their own flesh and blood.

[SliK]

Outside sources such as cigarettes, alcohol, abuse, etc all contribute much more (up to a 15% higher risk) to birth defects than being related.
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview
Should we outlaw the marriage between smokers? Or what about people who drink alcohol? Should they have their right to marry revoked?

No but they should have their right to drink and smoke during pregnancy revoked.

That's not an argument against incest.

An incestuous couple may have no interest in having babies. Maybe they are aware of the slightly increased risk, and simply want to celebrate their genuine love for each other and have the same rights as any other loving couple.

So she's on the pill, or he gets his tubes tied, whatever. Now what is your argument against their right to marry?

[classthe_king]

Outside sources such as cigarettes, alcohol, abuse, etc all contribute much more (up to a 15% higher risk) to birth defects than being related.
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview
Should we outlaw the marriage between smokers? Or what about people who drink alcohol? Should they have their right to marry revoked?

No but they should have their right to drink and smoke during pregnancy revoked.

That's not an argument against incest.

An incestuous couple may have no interest in having babies. Maybe they are aware of the slightly increased risk, and simply want to celebrate their genuine love for each other and have the same rights as any other loving couple.

So she's on the pill, or he gets his tubes tied, whatever. Now what is your argument against their right to marry?

Mistakes happen, people have unplanned kids all the time.

[SliK]

And a couple that don't want a kid get it aborted. Same with any couple that doesn't want a kid. I know like 4 people who have had abortions and they're not even married.

Also, why do you think they have to be married to be having sex? Marriage doesn't increase the risk of a couple having children.

[classthe_king]

And a couple that don't want a kid get it aborted. Same with any couple that doesn't want a kid. I know like 4 people who have had abortions and they're not even married.

Also, why do you think they have to be married to be having sex? Marriage doesn't increase the risk of a couple having children.

The relationship shouldn't be happening at all, regardless of if they are married or not. If they want to get married and never have sex then go for it but we both know that's not going to happen.

[Ticalrecords]

there really isn't one... as long as they don't have babies your right, they aint hurting anyone. loll. its a good point. that be a hard one to side step as far as the gay side of it. i wanna know what your opening line was for when you broached the subject with gays loll. must have been classic

as a side note, i blame the power of suggestion for gays, incest, and all sorts of kinky sex (haha)

[SliK]

And a couple that don't want a kid get it aborted. Same with any couple that doesn't want a kid. I know like 4 people who have had abortions and they're not even married.

Also, why do you think they have to be married to be having sex? Marriage doesn't increase the risk of a couple having children.

The relationship shouldn't be happening at all, regardless of if they are married or not. If they want to get married and never have sex then go for it but we both know that's not going to happen.

But the relationships are happening. You could take what you just said and apply it to gay relationships. My point is, these relationships happen whether you agree with it or not. Stopping people from getting married doesn't stop the relationships, it just takes people's rights away. If stopping people from getting married actually worked homosexuality wouldn't exist. Marriage isn't legal for them (close blood relatives) and never has been. Yet here we are debating about it because although it's uncommon, it's still happening.

[classthe_king]

And a couple that don't want a kid get it aborted. Same with any couple that doesn't want a kid. I know like 4 people who have had abortions and they're not even married.

Also, why do you think they have to be married to be having sex? Marriage doesn't increase the risk of a couple having children.

The relationship shouldn't be happening at all, regardless of if they are married or not. If they want to get married and never have sex then go for it but we both know that's not going to happen.

But the relationships are happening. You could take what you just said and apply it to gay relationships. My point is, these relationships happen whether you agree with it or not. Stopping people from getting married doesn't stop the relationships, it just takes people's rights away. If stopping people from getting married actually worked homosexuality wouldn't exist. Marriage isn't legal for them (close blood relatives) and never has been. Yet here we are debating about it because although it's uncommon, it's still happening.

You're not taking their rights away. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure most of the privileges gained through marriage they would have already had because they're already family.

[SliK]

They aren't necissarily next of kins though, what rights do a brother and sister really have? They might have ex spouses or children from those spouses that would have more right to their estate than a brother or sister that weren't recognized as husband and wife.