Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
iToast

Incest

Recommended Posts

Why is there a higher chance of genetic disorder? Is that just something someone came up with?

It's called Inbreeding. A very well established scientific field of study.

The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives - Nancy Wilmsen Thornhill Read the first chapter at least, it will explain a lot.

And here are two different ways to calculate the "Inbreeding coefficient"

1.Tabular Method

2. Path Method

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally don't see myself doing it, but I don't judge those who are attracted to people in their family. Being constantly around each other with mutual feelings like that would be hard to suppress. Who you love is not a choice you get to make.

 

Yet this topic is not about love, it is about lust.

Lust doesn't cancel out love.

Edited by Dad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is there a higher chance of genetic disorder? Is that just something someone came up with?

It's called Inbreeding. A very well established scientific field of study.

The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives - Nancy Wilmsen Thornhill Read the first chapter at least, it will explain a lot.

And here are two different ways to calculate the "Inbreeding coefficient"

1.Tabular Method

2. Path Method

It shouldnt matter what it does. If you support gay marriage you should support incest on the same principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incest is not civilized, it's scientifically wrong.

 

Haven't anyone seen The Hills Have Eyes???

What would be your argument against homosexual incest? They cannot procreate, so the possibility of mentally retarded children is nil.

 

I think incest is immoral..it just creeps me out...gross...

Why is something immoral just because it creeps you out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is there a higher chance of genetic disorder? Is that just something someone came up with?

It's called Inbreeding. A very well established scientific field of study.

The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives - Nancy Wilmsen Thornhill Read the first chapter at least, it will explain a lot.

And here are two different ways to calculate the "Inbreeding coefficient"

1.Tabular Method

2. Path Method

It shouldnt matter what it does. If you support gay marriage you should support incest on the same principles.

Gay sex doesn't produce a higher chance of genetic defects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay sex has roughly -100% of an effect on anything involving children.

 

Your attempts at sarcasm are pathetic.

 

If incest didn't have a higher tendency to produce mentally disabled children (it doesn't only produce more retarded children. There are other disorders commonly produced by incest), I would still be against it.

 

"For a man will leave his family and marry his wife."

 

Leave his family. I've got no qualms about cousins but siblings. Yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is there a higher chance of genetic disorder? Is that just something someone came up with?

It's called Inbreeding. A very well established scientific field of study.

The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives - Nancy Wilmsen Thornhill Read the first chapter at least, it will explain a lot.

And here are two different ways to calculate the "Inbreeding coefficient"

1.Tabular Method

2. Path Method

It shouldnt matter what it does. If you support gay marriage you should support incest on the same principles.

Gay sex doesn't produce a higher chance of genetic defects.

Neither does protected straight sex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scary: He means that incest between straight couples won't produce children with genetic defects (or children at all, for that matter) if the sex is protected. Of course there is the possibility that the contraception could fail, which is a good reason to get gene tests and/or use a more reliable method of protection.

 

So you're saying if you want to have sex with someone then it isn't love? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Purely wanting to have sex with someone - alone this is lust, but you can still love someone and want to have sex with them. For example, I love my boyfriend and I also want to have sex with him. Just because there is lust involved doesn't mean I'm not in love with him. The same principles should apply when someone falls in love with their relative, although saying that, there is always the possibility of confusion of different types of love.

 

No, what I said was what was written, in english, in my above post.

 

No where did I state that one can only love, or lust, after another person. What I stated was that it either is, or it is not lust.

 

The desire to want to have sex with someone, that is lust pure and simple. You may, or may not, love this person, but it is a fact that it is lust if you wish to have sex with that person.

 

There are no "different types" of love. There is love. There is lust. It is that simple.

Of course there are different types of love, for example platonic love and romantic love. If two relations are 'in lust', regardless of whether or not they are in love, they may have strong feelings for each other. Although they can of course, control their actions, feelings of lust often cannot be controlled, similar to the way love cannot be controlled. Imagine having to constantly bottle up those feelings, especially if the two people may be around each other regularly, just because having sex would go against most people's norms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm "O.K." with incest, as long as it is between two consenting adults. I don't have to understand it, nor do I want to. I myself would never associate with such people, but if they wish to do it, I don't care.

But they must never produce children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's completely and utterly wrong on so many levels, especially evolutionary.

 

Not to mention it's a burden on the planet, seen as it's up to other people to look after any of their offspring who may end up on the low end of the genetic lottery. Think about it. How many people pay taxes?

 

While I'm not a fan of consensual incest at all, rape/abuse takes it to a whole 'nother level. (of sick)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creepy and wierd but if your not making retarded babies i don't see any moral or legal problems with it. A hole is a hole and i feel if the hole consents whther it be a vagina a butt a sister a brother a mom or a warm apple pie i see nothing wrong with it its your body as long as its behind closed doors i don't care if you haul coal in it. I personally have some fetishes that some would consider creepy [nothing that wierd] but me and my girlfriend aren't harming anyone and neither are you and your sister.

 

Yes you may produce some strange offspring but so do people with aspegers or autism should they not be allowed to reproduce? Sounds like what that nice fellow Mr. Hitler was trying to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Emanick
Creepy and wierd but if your not making retarded babies i don't see any moral or legal problems with it. A hole is a hole and i feel if the hole consents whther it be a vagina a butt a sister a brother a mom or a warm apple pie i see nothing wrong with it its your body as long as its behind closed doors i don't care if you haul coal in it. I personally have some fetishes that some would consider creepy [nothing that wierd] but me and my girlfriend aren't harming anyone and neither are you and your sister.

 

Yes you may produce some strange offspring but so do people with aspegers or autism should they not be allowed to reproduce? Sounds like what that nice fellow Mr. Hitler was trying to do.

 

Incest multiplies the chances of negative recessive traits emerging in an offspring, basically. People with Aspberger's Syndrome (me, for example), don't have any genetic propensity to create a mutation - i.e. someone with a genetic defect. And it's not as if Aspberger's is a "defect" in the strict sense of the word - they tend to have much higher mathematical skills, and the average IQ of someone with Aspberger's is higher than someone without it. Sure, it comes with a "chemical imbalance" in the brain, but my point is, it's not comparable to incest at all, since that doesn't increase the baby's strengths, only its weaknesses.

 

I guess I appreciate the fact that you think I have the right to reproduce, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incest is an interesting concept; yes it is taboo, but according to which culture? I know many middle eastern people who have married their first cousins and it is generally accepted in their culture as the 'norm'. The ancient Egyptians married their siblings too; this was seen as the 'norm' too. However, it is seen as taboo in western culture, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong either.

 

I personally think it's fine. I mean this within reason. I don't necessarily condone the marriage of siblings and cousins and I definitely don't condone their right to conceive, however, as far as a sexual relationship is concerned, if protection is used and both adults consent, then I don't see a problem.

 

The only issue is, a lot of incest relationships involve emotional and or sexual abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a fun thing to confront fundies with. Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet. Their kids would have to mate with eachother (or with their parents) in order to reproduce.

 

Suddenly they will say that 'not all parts of the bible should be taken literally'. Funny as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incest is an interesting concept; yes it is taboo, but according to which culture?

I learned in my freshman anthropology class that every civilization has had an incest taboo, in one form or another.

I can believe that.

 

Our morals and ethics have changed considerably over time and Christianity in the western world has shaped a lot of our current views, whether we're religious or not. It's the same with the homosexuality debate too, the ancient Greeks had no issue with it, the same reasoning applies here.

 

I know many people who have married their cousins or know someone who has and it's not considered taboo culturally. Also, in some cultures it is custom for a boys aunty to take his virginity; most of us would think that was either 'gross' and/or 'wrong' but it is only because we have been conditioned to react that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Emanick
Here's a fun thing to confront fundies with. Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet. Their kids would have to mate with eachother (or with their parents) in order to reproduce.

 

Suddenly they will say that 'not all parts of the bible should be taken literally'. Funny as hell.

 

Only if you look at it narrow-mindedly.

 

The reason why incest is bad is because you share a long line of ancestors with your siblings, a long family history of similar genes. If you were going to create two human beings and were smart, you'd give them an incredible amount of genetic diversity and so their children would be free to form their own "races" and genealogies. By the time it got to mating with your second cousins, there's virtually no risk of creating mutated offspring - at least, not much more than normal.

 

Maybe some "fundies" wouldn't argue that, idk, but it makes complete sense.

 

Incest is an interesting concept; yes it is taboo, but according to which culture?

I learned in my freshman anthropology class that every civilization has had an incest taboo, in one form or another.

I can believe that.

 

Our morals and ethics have changed considerably over time and Christianity in the western world has shaped a lot of our current views, whether we're religious or not. It's the same with the homosexuality debate too, the ancient Greeks had no issue with it, the same reasoning applies here.

 

I know many people who have married their cousins or know someone who has and it's not considered taboo culturally. Also, in some cultures it is custom for a boys aunty to take his virginity; most of us would think that was either 'gross' and/or 'wrong' but it is only because we have been conditioned to react that way.

 

Do you mean you can't believe that? Otherwise I can't make out what you're saying.

 

Assuming this is what you mean, I'll say that your point about it only being "wrong" because we've been trained to think that way is only valid if we assume the nonexistence of objective truth, which I don't. But this is an impossible concept to support or refute in a debate normally, so I don't expect that idea to go anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok guys i still dont understand how reproducing with a family member makes a retarded child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok guys i still dont understand how reproducing with a family member makes a retarded child

 

It doesn't but because your and your relatives genes are similar so it doubles the chance of recieving any 'bad' genes [such as retardation.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well aren't there bad genes that are dominant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well aren't there bad genes that are dominant?

Dominant genes that are so bad as to create a selective evolutionary pressure against an individual will quickly die out. Note that such genes must be expressed before they are passed on to the next generation - so a bad gene that causes an individual to develop heart disease in middle age isn't selected against since most genes are passed on before middle age.

 

There are also selective pressures in favour of some bad genes. For instance, the gene that causes sickle-cell anaemia is recessive. If an individual carries just one copy of the gene they are more resistant to malaria. But if someone is unlucky enough to have two copies, they develop a life-threatening anaemia. Such a possibility is much greater as a result of incest than in the general population at large. @Meidou - the probability is (for a rare gene) much more than doubled. It rises to about 25% in the case of brother-sister or parent-child offspring, whereas in the population at large, the likelihood is much more likely to be below 1% for most fatal or debilitating genetic diseases.

 

The increased incidence of genetic disease is the reason every culture has developed an incest taboo. I suspect that there is also an instinctual taboo too, so that humans (just like other animals that raise offspring in litters or family groups) have a behavioural drive to mate with non-relatives. The instinct isn't absolute though (animals can and will mate with close relations when alternative mates cannot be obtained). Hence the development of the cultural taboos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a fun thing to confront fundies with. Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet. Their kids would have to mate with eachother (or with their parents) in order to reproduce.

 

Suddenly they will say that 'not all parts of the bible should be taken literally'. Funny as hell.

 

But to be true, according to the chart, everyone on the human planet dates back genetically to a "Scientific Adam" and a "Scientific Eve".

 

queens-genes.jpg

 

This was actually a really interesting program to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a fun thing to confront fundies with. Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet. Their kids would have to mate with eachother (or with their parents) in order to reproduce.

 

Suddenly they will say that 'not all parts of the bible should be taken literally'. Funny as hell.

 

But to be true, according to the chart, everyone on the human planet dates back genetically to a "Scientific Adam" and a "Scientific Eve".

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/img/big-idea/queens-genes.jpg

 

This was actually a really interesting program to watch.

I taped it and I'm 30 minutes through it and it's great so far. It's amazing how they can link all of us back to one theoretical "Eve".

Edited by Gillis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.