Generally speaking, as long as they're consenting adults and there are no children in the picture then I simply don't care.
But I'd see no point in marriage as they're already family (that's what marriage does and why "same sex unions" aren't good enough, only marriage makes people family). I'm sure there are some bureaucratic rules regarding insurance and the like that can't be shared with any but a spouse the really important aspects (visitation, right to be notified by law enforcement, etc) are already present. Therefore I don't favor incestuous marriage (btw, fun fact, many of the most antigay states in the US, including South Carolina that has amended their state constitution to not even allow same sex unions, allow full marriage & breeding to first cousins), though I wouldn't care enough to support measures against it either. And if it were up to me people could make whatever contracts they wanted that worked just like marriage (possibly even between multiple people at the same time) and have whatever additional religious ceremonies they want outside of that. Especially if society became matrifocal (that is the surname is inherited from the woman instead of the man).
As for why people care...there are valid reasons. Your comparing AIDS to inbreeding doesn't work because the danger is already present. Many people are willing to accept the risks of STDs but that doesn't go so far as to say one SHOULD have relations (even practicing safe sex) with those KNOWN to have such diseases. And that goes for straight people, too, like a commercial came on about some medicine that helped I think herpes go into remission (and supposedly couldn't be spread) with one saying "I have a life." A straight women with me snarked, "Your life is why you have herpes." Though she was supportive of her brother being with women I don't think she'd have felt the same level of support if the specific woman was known to have herpes...or AIDS.
Still, a lot of people just like to look down on the sexual practices of others to feel better about their own. (And not just sex, btw, heck I think the reason so many "reality TV" shows are so popular is so people can feel better about their own dysfunctional lives by thinking "at least I'm not like THOSE people.")
Whether or not YOU or I would have sexual or romantic relations with siblings or cousins is entirely irrelevant. It's clear that some people make that choice (though I suspect it's exceedingly rare). The question is WHY is it ok or not? Especially in same-sex situations.
If you find it revolting, disturbing, or unsettling -- why? Because you can't imagine yourself making that choice? Because society (family) has taught you it's "wrong"?
So.... as its only the act of having a child that is morally wrong, the child itself is whats wrong, what they did to produce that child was okay.
No seriously ok lets say incest is ok... why does the taking out the equation of birth make any difference here or there.
I'm simply saying this because there's a high risk of genetic disorders when close family members mate. I extend this judgement to anyone who is at a high risk of creating a child with genetic disorders. I have a close friend with cystic fibrosis, and watching someone struggle through something that could be prevented and is painful like that, makes me believe that if you actively know you could create a child with severe disorders, you should consider not taking the risk of inflicting that on someone.
Should family members fall in love and be together, I think raising kids through adopting them or what not is a good idea, because it skips over the risk of genetic disorders.
Beyond this, I don't personally care if family members fall in love. It would be so painful to realize you have such feelings for a family member already, I think any criticism I could inflict on someone has already happened ten fold in their own head. So as long as they're adults, and not a situation of sexual abuse, I'm not going to care beyond the little cringe I do whenever something strikes me as a little gross, and a "I hope you don't have a child because of the risks involved.". It's basically a non-issue for me if no one is getting hurt.
Incest should be legal, after every single last damn human being is sterilized...
Oh not permanently, there are methods that sterilize for a decade that ain't that invasive both male and female.
Yeah I get in the millions of years of evolution humans needed to breed often and wantonly, so we all have a healthy sex drive. However we now have technology that can prevent a majority of the births that take place today. And with over 7 billion human beings on earth, everyone being sterilized for 20 years would really improve the human condition.
Yeah I'm also for euthanasia and eugenics. I firmly believe that anyone with a genetically linked disorder should opt out of the gene pool and not visit their particular taint on our descendants. As an aside I carry a genetic defect and would gladly step up front to be sterilized - even though I am a gay man and the chances of my having offspring are slim to none.
My point - I don't care what two consenting adults do as long as it doesn't lead to harm of anyone, including the next generation. I have some pretty cold and calculated views on who should and should not bear children based on science and logic (fitness of the species, medicine, health, improvement of the species, leaving behind genetically linked disorders, etc) So the only problem I have with incest is if its a brother and sister and they are not sterilized to remove any chance of visiting a genetic disaster of their offspring.
If both are fixed they can have all the fun they want. While its true that that first generation of a sister/brother pair are not really that prone to physical/mental ailments due to inbreeding, it is a matter of generations (Look at the history of Royalty), thus might as well nip it in the bud and make certain the first generation does not begat a second generation to begat a third.
I think more people would be accepting of incest if they were assured that no infertile, crazed kings would rise to power to cause war that slaughters the population or something horrific.
The most common argument against incest is that it's "unnatural". First of all, it DOES occur in nature a lot more frequently than you may believe, but let's suppose for a minute that it didn't. Why on earth would you ever consider nature a reasonable source of morality? Infanticide, cannibalism and abandoning of the weak are just a few examples from the top of my head of occurrences that are far from unusual in the animal kingdom. The morality of any civilized society is fundamentally different from the cold reality of nature so the argument that unnatural = bad and natural = good is a complete failure right from the beginning.
I also notice a tendency for people to bring up very personal arguments. "I'm against it because I just feel it's wrong and I can't imagine having feelings like that etc." You don't have to relate to the feelings personally. I for one am completely repulsed by the idea of any form of sexual intimacy with a relative. What you feel for yourself is irrelevant.
HumbleTangerine Wrote:The most common argument against incest is that it's "unnatural". First of all, it DOES occur in nature a lot more frequently than you may believe, but let's suppose for a minute that it didn't. Why on earth would you ever consider nature a reasonable source of morality? Infanticide, cannibalism and abandoning of the weak are just a few examples from the top of my head of occurrences that are far from unusual in the animal kingdom. The morality of any civilized society is fundamentally different from the cold reality of nature so the argument that unnatural = bad and natural = good is a complete failure right from the beginning.
I also notice a tendency for people to bring up very personal arguments. "I'm against it because I just feel it's wrong and I can't imagine having feelings like that etc." You don't have to relate to the feelings personally. I for one am completely repulsed by the idea of any form of sexual intimacy with a relative. What you feel for yourself is irrelevant.
If I may, Master, allow your humble slave to inflate something ;3
While Incestuous relationships do occur in nature, as seen with creatures that cross their genes within the same families, although not always directly with penetration, such as Fish and Corals, whom release spermatophores and Unfertilized eggs, the chances of this happening are purposefully reduced with the introduction of other families of Fish of the same species and neighboring coral colonies, as it is shown that in many species, familial mating results in often times lackluster young.
Male Lion cubs are pushed from the Pride upon or just after reaching sexual maturity for this reason, so that he does not mate with his Sisters,Aunts,Mother and so forth. I've never heard of a Pride in the wild that has allowed a Male cub of the same Family to remain and in so doing allow him to mate with them. However I have heard of a Male Alpha lion trying to mate his daughter, but in almost 8/10 chances this would never happen, as he would either be killed defending his turf or die of old age and perhaps she would be run out, the the last I've never heard of. And because Female cubs are not killed by rival males, that further fosters Genetic Diversity.
However, it seems ofteen enough, Sons who have been run out, fight for the pride of their fathers and in which case he would Breed his Sisters, Aunt and Mother, but thats only if he won and survived all the things Lone Males have to such as eating and staying alive.
Many Animals, especially in Herds/Groups, do this, most likely for the sake of Genetic Diversity. Males fight and kill each other to Pass on their Genes and the chances of them doing so with a close relative is very slim for the fact of all the hazards, so called as "Natural Selection, given to them.
Not only that, but unlike with the "Gay Gene"(used very loosely) found in Animals, Incest seems to be blatantly and almost opposed/disliked. Mother animals typically do not want children with her offspring, and while given the opportunity, some Male species would mate with their daughters, the chances they do, whether out of choice or not, is small enough that their species remains clear of familial afflictions of reproduction, such as retardation or "Lameness".
Given close quarters, such as reduced habitat or even in a Zoo or some such, the chances are much more likely, however this is due to influences of the environment and not necessarily by choice wholly, as Animals seem to prefer find Mates genetically different from themselves.
Eventually if you lock a Mother & Son Lion in a small area, he will breed her, but typically in the wild he would not get the chance to.
So while it does occur in Nature, it is mostly by chance or from environmental issues, rather than blatant attraction or infatuation.
Humans are capable of much more complex thought than animals, which I loathe to Admit, as I believe we are equal to Animals, however, we can choose and feel what we want, even after knowing what the outcome could be.
Its not a bad thing, im not against it, I was just merely trying to extrapolate on what you said regarding nature. Unfortunately, Humans of today cannot be compared in regards of sexuality entirely, to that of Animals, because while we may share a great deal of things, Animals have us beat on Instincts and we are more thoughts/feelings.
Human Incestual relationships, cannot be compared to an Animals one. Neither can Sexuality as a whole either, atleast not in its entirety.
I could be wrong, heck I most likely am, but this what I've seen.
Im just the Mad Hatters Twin, you know how these things go ;3
Eloquent answer as usual. I don't really have the time or energy to confirm everything you said, but I'll take your word for it! The way I see it, though, the frequency doesn't really change my argument very considerably as long as it still does occur, regardless of how limited because
1. The other behaviours still occur somewhat normally, at least within certain species.
2. Nature is diverse enough for a huge variety of different behaviour and different phenomena to exist. If you use the "something is bad because it's unnatural" you have to ask yourself what you're basing that on to begin with. More specifically, I doubt you can use the "unnatural" argument without your opponent being able to find at least a few exceptions from nature. Are certain sources from nature more creditable than others? If so, which ones and why? Even if something is unnatural, why would that necessarily constitute something bad? What's natural for the female mantis is unacceptable for humans. The "natural" argument raises plenty of questions and in my opinion it fails right from the beginning.
Thanks for your pointers though! I actually just came here to link this video so I'll get on with it now:
Sylph Wrote:If I may, Master, allow your humble slave to inflate something ;3
While Incestuous relationships do occur in nature, as seen with creatures that cross their genes within the same families, although not always directly with penetration, such as Fish and Corals, whom release spermatophores and Unfertilized eggs, the chances of this happening are purposefully reduced with the introduction of other families of Fish of the same species and neighboring coral colonies, as it is shown that in many species, familial mating results in often times lackluster young.
Male Lion cubs are pushed from the Pride upon or just after reaching sexual maturity for this reason, so that he does not mate with his Sisters,Aunts,Mother and so forth. I've never heard of a Pride in the wild that has allowed a Male cub of the same Family to remain and in so doing allow him to mate with them. However I have heard of a Male Alpha lion trying to mate his daughter, but in almost 8/10 chances this would never happen, as he would either be killed defending his turf or die of old age and perhaps she would be run out, the the last I've never heard of. And because Female cubs are not killed by rival males, that further fosters Genetic Diversity.
However, it seems ofteen enough, Sons who have been run out, fight for the pride of their fathers and in which case he would Breed his Sisters, Aunt and Mother, but thats only if he won and survived all the things Lone Males have to such as eating and staying alive.
Many Animals, especially in Herds/Groups, do this, most likely for the sake of Genetic Diversity. Males fight and kill each other to Pass on their Genes and the chances of them doing so with a close relative is very slim for the fact of all the hazards, so called as "Natural Selection, given to them.
Not only that, but unlike with the "Gay Gene"(used very loosely) found in Animals, Incest seems to be blatantly and almost opposed/disliked. Mother animals typically do not want children with her offspring, and while given the opportunity, some Male species would mate with their daughters, the chances they do, whether out of choice or not, is small enough that their species remains clear of familial afflictions of reproduction, such as retardation or "Lameness".
Given close quarters, such as reduced habitat or even in a Zoo or some such, the chances are much more likely, however this is due to influences of the environment and not necessarily by choice wholly, as Animals seem to prefer find Mates genetically different from themselves.
Eventually if you lock a Mother & Son Lion in a small area, he will breed her, but typically in the wild he would not get the chance to.
So while it does occur in Nature, it is mostly by chance or from environmental issues, rather than blatant attraction or infatuation.
Humans are capable of much more complex thought than animals, which I loathe to Admit, as I believe we are equal to Animals, however, we can choose and feel what we want, even after knowing what the outcome could be.
Its not a bad thing, im not against it, I was just merely trying to extrapolate on what you said regarding nature. Unfortunately, Humans of today cannot be compared in regards of sexuality entirely, to that of Animals, because while we may share a great deal of things, Animals have us beat on Instincts and we are more thoughts/feelings.
Human Incestual relationships, cannot be compared to an Animals one. Neither can Sexuality as a whole either, atleast not in its entirety.
I could be wrong, heck I most likely am, but this what I've seen.
Im just the Mad Hatters Twin, you know how these things go ;3
Well said, btw, I love the pic on the bottom of your post
I don't know...I find male/male incest attractive and fascinating...I probably wouldn't consent to do it with my own siblings, but if I were to have a twin, it'd be just like masturbation to me.
I think adults will make their own choices. On another site I'm a member of, there is a couple that are identical twin brothers. They grew up so close-knit as children that when they reached adulthood, they had both come out, and they stayed together as a couple because they couldn't stand the thought of not being with each other, I don't think that's wrong, I think it's beautiful.
I also don't think incest is necessarily morally wrong either because most kids going through puberty tend to get their sexual education from an older sibling/cousin/family member before their parents give them "the talk," whether that leads to any sort of physical contact then would encroach on that moral boundary as one of the parties isn't necessarily consenting, but incest has been around since Ancient Greece, particularly male/male incest.
Yes, there is always the question of inbreeding, but that takes several generations. I personally wouldn't want to risk it, but if it's two consenting adults in love then what the hell.
So....incest
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
